lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: WARNING in tracing_func_proto
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 11:44:13 +0100
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:

> FWIW this is invalid use of WARN macros:
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.5-rc7/source/include/asm-generic/bug.h#L72
> This should be replaced with pr_err (if really necessary, kernel does
> not generally spew stacks on every ENOMEM/EINVAL).

That message was added in 2018. The WARN macro in question here, was
added in 2011. Thus, this would be more of a clean up fix.

>
> There are no _lots_ such wrong uses of WARN in the kernel. There were
> some, all get fixed over time, we are still discovering long tail, but
> it's like one per months at most. Note: syzbot reports each and every
> WARNING. If there were lots, you would notice :)

Hmm, I haven't looked, but are all these correct usage?

$ git grep WARN_ON HEAD | wc -l
15384

I also checked the number of WARN_ON when that WARN_ON was added:

$ git grep WARN_ON 07d777fe8c3985bc83428c2866713c2d1b3d4129 | wc -l
4730

A lot more were added since then!

>
> Sorting this out is critical for just any kernel testing. Otherwise no
> testing system will be able to say if a test triggers something bad in
> kernel or not.
>
> FWIW there are no local trees for syzbot. It only tests public trees
> as is. Doing otherwise would not work/scale as a process.

Anyway, I'll happily take a patch converting that WARN_ON macro to a
pr_err() print.

-- Steve

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-24 16:29    [W:0.193 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site