Re: [PATCH 2/2 net] sctp: fix an error code in sctp_sf_eat_auth()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 2:28 AM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 07:04:17PM -0400, Xin Long wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 12:41 PM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 11:13:03AM -0400, Xin Long wrote:
> > > It is a bug, sure.  And after my patch is applied it will still trigger
> > > a stack trace.  But we should only call the actual BUG() function
> > > in order to prevent filesystem corruption or a privilege escalation or
> > > something along those lines.
> > Hi, Dan,
> >
> > Sorry, I'm not sure about this.
> >
> > Look at the places where it's using  BUG(), it's not exactly the case, like
> > in ping_err() or ping_common_sendmsg(), BUG() are used more for
> > unexpected cases, which don't cause any filesystem corruption or a
> > privilege escalation.
> >
> > You may also check more others under net/*.
> >
> Linus has been very clear that the BUG() in ping_err() is wrong and
> should be removed.  But to me if you're very very sure a BUG() can't be
> triggered that's more like a style or philosophy debate than a real life
> issue.
I see, didn't know that there are so many BUG() uses that are historic
in the kernel, including net/*.

> When you look at ping_err() then it's like.  Ugh...  If we leave off the
> else statement then GCC and other static checkers will complain that the
> variables are uninitialized.  It we add a return then it communicates to
> the reader that this path is possible.  But the BUG() silences the
> static checker warning and communicates that the path is impossible.
> A different solution might be to do a WARN(); followed by a return.  Or
> unreachable();.  But the last time I proposed using unreachable() for
> annotating impossible paths it lead to link errors and I haven't had
> time to investigate.  Another idea is that we could create a WARN() that
> included an unreachable() annotation.
>         } else {
>                 IMPOSSIBLE("An impossible thing has occured");
>         }
> As a static analysis developer, I have made Smatch ignore WARN()
> information because warnings happen regularly and the information they
> provide is not useful.  Smatch does consider unreachable() annotations
> as accurate.
Got it, thanks for the extra information.
A WARN() with unreachable() annotation sounds like a good idea.

> Anyway, in this patch the situation is completely different.  Returning
> wrong error codes is a very common bug.  It's already happened once and
> it will likely happen again.
> My main worry with this patch is that the networking maintainers will
> say, "Thanks, but please delete all the calls to BUG() in this function".
> I just selected this one because it was particularly bad and it needs to
> be handled a bit specially.  Deleting all the other calls to BUG() isn't
> something that I want to take on.
Yeah, we should gradually replace these bogus BUG()s.

Anyway, for these two patches:
Acked-by: Xin Long <>


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Networking Development]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     SCTP

  Powered by Linux