On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 08:11:50AM -1000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2015 7:22 AM, "Andrea Arcangeli" <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > + if (cmd != UFFDIO_API) {
> > + if (ctx->state == UFFD_STATE_WAIT_API)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + BUG_ON(ctx->state != UFFD_STATE_RUNNING);
> > + }
>
> NAK.
>
> Once again: we don't add BUG_ON() as some kind of assert. If your
> non-critical code has s bug in it, you do WARN_ONCE() and you return. You
> don't kill the machine just because of some "this can't happen" situation.
>
> It turns out "this can't happen" happens way too often, just because code
> changes, or programmers didn't think all the cases through. And killing the
> machine is just NOT ACCEPTABLE.
>
> People need to stop adding machine-killing checks to code that just doesn't
> merit killing the machine.
>
> And if you are so damn sure that it really cannot happen ever, then you
> damn well had better remove the test too!
>
> BUG_ON is not a debugging tool, or a "I think this would be bad" helper.
Several times I got very hardly reproducible bugs noticed purely
because of BUG_ON (not VM_BUG_ON) inserted out of pure paranoia, so I
know as a matter of fact that they're worth the little cost. It's hard
to tell if things didn't get worse, if the workload continued, or even
if I ended up getting a bugreport in the first place with only a
WARN_ON variant, precisely because a WARN_ON isn't necessarily a bug.
Example: when a WARN_ON in the network code showup (and they do once
in a while as there are so many), nobody panics because we assume it
may not actually be a bug so we can cross finger it goes away at the
next git fetch... not even sure if they all get reported in the first
place.
BUG_ONs are terribly annoying when they trigger, and even worse if
they're false positives, but they're worth the pain in my view.
Of course what's unacceptable is that BUG_ON can be triggered at will
by userland, that would be a security issue. Just in case I verified
to run two UFFDIO_API in a row and a UFFDIO_REGISTER without an
UFFDIO_API before it, and no BUG_ON triggers with this code inserted.
Said that it's your choice, so I'm not going to argue further about
this and I'm sure fine with WARN_ONCE too, there were a few more to
convert in the state machine invariant checks. While at it I can also
use VM_WARN_ONCE to cover my performance concern.
Thanks,
Andrea
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>