lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/3] pwm: Add pwm_cansleep() as exported API to users
Hello,

Le 28/01/2013 16:01, Russell King - ARM Linux a écrit :
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:36:07AM +0100, Florian Vaussard wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Le 28/01/2013 09:45, Peter Ujfalusi a écrit :
>>> hi Thierry,
>>>
>>> On 01/26/2013 06:40 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + return pwm->chip->can_sleep;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_cansleep);
>>>>
>>>> Would it make sense to check for NULL pointers here? I guess that
>>>> passing NULL into the function could be considered a programming error
>>>> and an oops would be okay, but in that case there's no point in making
>>>> the function return an int. Also see my next comment.
>>>
>>> While it is unlikely to happen it is better to be safe, something like this
>>> will do:
>>>
>>> return pwm ? pwm->chip->can_sleep : 0;
>>>
>>
>> Ok. And what about:
>>
>> BUG_ON(pwm == NULL);
>> return pwm->chip->can_sleep;
>
> Let's get something straight.
>
> 1. Don't use BUG_ON() as some kind of willy nilly assert() replacement.
> Linus refused to have assert() in the kernel because assert() gets not
> only over-used, but also gets inappropriately used too.
>
> _Only_ _ever_ use BUG_ON() if continuing is going to cause user
> noticable data loss which is not reportable to userspace. In other
> words, block device queue corruption or the like - where bringing the
> system down is going to _save_ the system from itself.
>
> Otherwise, return an error and/or use WARN_ON().
>
> 2. If you want a slow kernel, then by all means check your arguments to
> your functions. While you're at it, why not check that strings which
> are passed contain only the characters you expect them to? And, if
> you're bothering to check against a NULL pointer, what about NULL+1
> pointers which are also invalid? Why not invent some function to
> ensure that the pointer is a valid kernel pointer. Maybe you'll have
> to interate the vmalloc lists too - yay, more code to be executed!
> That must be good!
>
> In your example, if you're going to check that pwm is non-NULL, what
> if pwm->chip is non-NULL? How far do you take this?
>
> Or... just like most of the core kernel does, it does _not_ verify on
> function entry that the pointer is "correct" unless it is explicitly
> defined that the function may take a NULL pointer (like kfree()).
> Everything else just goes right on and does the dereference - and if
> the pointer was wrong, we hope that the MMU faults and we get a kernel
> oops.
>
> Have a read through the code in fs/ or kernel/ and see how many functions
> you can spot in there which validate their pointers which aren't dealing
> with data from userland.
>
> You'll find almost no function checking that an inode pointer is not NULL.
> Or a struct file pointer. Or a struct path pointer... etc.
>
> Yet, you come to ARM code, and it seems "popular" that pointer arguments
> need to be verified on every single function call. Why is this?
>
> I don't know if Andrew would like to inject something here (I've added
> him) on this subject...
>

The v3 does not contain the check.

Thank you,

Florian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-28 17:21    [W:0.055 / U:1.792 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site