Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 7 Jul 2021 09:51:29 -0400
From:   "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi <desmondcheongzx@gmail.com>,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, skhan@linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        syzbot+e6d5398a02c516ce5e70@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] fcntl: fix potential deadlocks for
 &fown_struct.lock
Message-ID: <20210707135129.GA9446@fieldses.org>
References: <20210707023548.15872-1-desmondcheongzx@gmail.com>
 <20210707023548.15872-2-desmondcheongzx@gmail.com>
 <YOVENb3X/m/pNrYt@kroah.com>
 <14633c3be87286d811263892375f2dfa9a8ed40a.camel@kernel.org>
 <YOWHKk6Nq8bazYjB@kroah.com>
 <4dda1cad6348fced5fcfcb6140186795ed07d948.camel@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4dda1cad6348fced5fcfcb6140186795ed07d948.camel@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 07:40:47AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-07-07 at 12:51 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 06:44:42AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2021-07-07 at 08:05 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 10:35:47AM +0800, Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi wrote:
> > > > > +	WARN_ON_ONCE(irqs_disabled());
> > > > 
> > > > If this triggers, you just rebooted the box :(
> > > > 
> > > > Please never do this, either properly handle the problem and return an
> > > > error, or do not check for this.  It is not any type of "fix" at all,
> > > > and at most, a debugging aid while you work on the root problem.
> > > > 
> > > > thanks,
> > > > 
> > > > greg k-h
> > > 
> > > Wait, what? Why would testing for irqs being disabled and throwing a
> > > WARN_ON in that case crash the box?
> > 
> > If panic-on-warn is enabled, which is a common setting for systems these
> > days.
> 
> Ok, that makes some sense.

Wait, I don't get it.

How are we supposed to decide when to use WARN, when to use BUG, and
when to panic?  Do we really want to treat them all as equivalent?  And
who exactly is turning on panic-on-warn?

--b.