On 03/16/2015 09:05 PM, Jeff Mahoney wrote: > On 3/16/15 8:55 AM, Nicolas Iooss wrote: >> * I missed something in my analysis and in fact the PID argument >> is processed by reiserfs_panic (don't know where), or * the PID >> argument is not used and should be removed, or > > This, please. reiserfs_panic calls BUG(), which will contain the PID. Whoo, thanks for the quick answer. I will send a patch as soon as possible. >> * the PID is useful and "[%i]" should be added somewhere in the >> format string. > >> Which one would you prefer? > >> Also, I found this when building the kernel with "allmodconfig" on >> x86_64. With "defconfig" gcc does not report this error, but I >> guess it is because without CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK, __RASSERT is >> never used. > > Yeah. If reiserfs was more actively maintained, what is currently > protected by CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK would be handled a bit better. > There are ton of fsfuzzer bugs that would be caught by it and should > be handled using reiserfs_error. Unfortunately, it also enables some > heavy checks that make the file system very slow. > > Thanks for looking into this. It looks like it's been broken for a > while. I suppose the only saving grace is that it would crash in a > path that crashes on purpose a few lines later. Yes, and this is also why I believe this bug is not a security issue nor something which needs an urgent fix. Thanks, Nicolas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
