Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 23 May 2018 11:52:13 -0700
From:   Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>,
        guillaume.knispel@supersonicimagine.com,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: semantics of rhashtable and sysvipc
Message-ID: <20180523185213.oagftojqlh4rexa6@linux-n805>
References: <20180523172500.anfvmjtumww65ief@linux-n805>
 <CA+55aFwAtfiMa22-OFGf1dNR8CNzSKjjLLj5UL-HqgapV7Tf1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180523183103.cdgv4slom62y56wi@linux-n805>
 <CA+55aFwJtj5ucfx3T-g9VnNgWG7EqHS9+oFMSv8oyv11Yaa2UQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFwJtj5ucfx3T-g9VnNgWG7EqHS9+oFMSv8oyv11Yaa2UQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170421 (1.8.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 23 May 2018, Linus Torvalds wrote:

>On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:47 AM Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> wrote:
>
>> Note that even if the allocation was guaranteed, there are still param
>validations
>> and rhashtable_init() can return -EINVAL.
>
>So?
>
>It's not going to happen, because you're not going to give garbage
>parameters.

Maybe EINVAL could be replaced with WARN_ON(). That would grab the programmer's
attention.

>
>Why would you add a BUG_ON() for something that cannot happen? You might as
>well sprinkle them randomly in every damn place.

Not suggesting this. Before I started the thread, I was actually thinking of
ipc using ENOMEM only for rhashtable_init() filure considering the EINVAL case
will never happen.

>
>And even if somebody screws up the parameters because they are being
>stupid, then SO WHAT? rhashtable_init() won't initialize the pointers, and
>we'll get a NULL pointer dereference.
>
>And hey, we'll probably get it later during boot, once the system is
>actually up and running, and that NULL pointer dereference might even get
>logged in the system logs now because the machine booted successfully, and
>mnaybe it will even get sent to a distro and debugged.
>
>So at what point was there _any_ advantage in doing a BUG_ON() for a crazy
>case?

For the record, I'm not arguing in favor of BUG_ON().