rxrpc: recvmsg: use BUG_ON instead of if condition followed by BUG
Subsystems (3)
PATCH 1/1 rxrpc: recvmsg: use BUG_ON instead of if condition followed by BUG
Use BUG_ON instead of if condition followed by BUG.
This issue was detected with the help of Coccinelle.
--- net/rxrpc/recvmsg.c | 6 ++---- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
net/rxrpc/recvmsg.c +2 -4
@@ -243,8 +243,7 @@ static int rxrpc_verify_packet(struct rxrpc_call *call, struct sk_buff *skb,*/ if ((annotation &RXRPC_RX_ANNO_JUMBO ) >1 ) {__be16 tmp; -if (skb_copy_bits (skb, offset -2 , &tmp,2 ) <0 ) -BUG (); +BUG_ON (skb_copy_bits (skb, offset -2 , &tmp,2 ) <0 ); cksum =ntohs (tmp); seq += (annotation &RXRPC_RX_ANNO_JUMBO ) -1 ; }
@@ -503,8 +502,7 @@ int rxrpc_recvmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len,release_sock (&rx->sk); -if (test_bit (RXRPC_CALL_RELEASED , &call->flags)) -BUG (); +BUG_ON (test_bit (RXRPC_CALL_RELEASED , &call->flags));if (test_bit (RXRPC_CALL_HAS_USERID , &call->flags)) {if (flags &MSG_CMSG_COMPAT ) {
Signature · 1 line
2.7.4
Please combine these related patches fixing BUG in rxrpc into a patch set with proper annotation,
Also, can any of these BUG_ONs be replaced by WARN_ONs? Warnings are generally preferable to crashing the system.
Tom
Quoted 36 lines · Gustavo A. R. Silva
Use
BUG_ONinstead of if condition followed by BUG.This issue was detected with the help of Coccinelle.
Signed-off-by Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>--- net/rxrpc/recvmsg.c | 6 ++---- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)net/rxrpc/recvmsg.c +2
-5@@ -243,8 +243,7 @@ static int rxrpc_verify_packet(struct rxrpc_call *call, struct sk_buff *skb,*/ if ((annotation &RXRPC_RX_ANNO_JUMBO ) >1 ) {__be16 tmp; -if (skb_copy_bits (skb, offset -2 , &tmp,2 ) <0 ) -BUG (); +BUG_ON (skb_copy_bits (skb, offset -2 , &tmp,2 ) <0 ); cksum =ntohs (tmp); seq += (annotation &RXRPC_RX_ANNO_JUMBO ) -1 ; }@@ -503,8 +502,7 @@ int rxrpc_recvmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len,release_sock (&rx->sk); -if (test_bit (RXRPC_CALL_RELEASED , &call->flags)) -BUG (); +BUG_ON (test_bit (RXRPC_CALL_RELEASED , &call->flags));if (test_bit (RXRPC_CALL_HAS_USERID , &call->flags)) {if (flags &MSG_CMSG_COMPAT ) { --2.7.4
Hi Tom,
Quoting Tom Herbert <[email protected]>:
Quoted 3 lines
Please combine these related patches fixing BUG in rxrpc into a patch set with proper annotation,
I can do that.
Quoted 3 lines
Also, can any of these
BUG_ONsbe replaced byWARN_ONs? Warnings are generally preferable to crashing the system.
What about WARN_ON_ONCE instead?
Thanks
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva
Quoted 43 lines
Tom
Quoted 38 lines · Gustavo A. R. Silva
Use
BUG_ONinstead of if condition followed by BUG.This issue was detected with the help of Coccinelle.
Signed-off-by Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>--- net/rxrpc/recvmsg.c | 6 ++---- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)net/rxrpc/recvmsg.c +1
-2@@ -243,8 +243,7 @@ static int rxrpc_verify_packet(structrxrpc_call *call, struct sk_buff *skb, */ if ((annotation &RXRPC_RX_ANNO_JUMBO ) >1 ) {__be16 tmp; -if (skb_copy_bits (skb, offset -2 , &tmp,2 ) <0 ) -BUG (); +BUG_ON (skb_copy_bits (skb, offset -2 , &tmp,2 ) <0 ); cksum =ntohs (tmp); seq += (annotation &RXRPC_RX_ANNO_JUMBO ) -1 ;}net/rxrpc/recvmsg.c +1
-2@@ -503,8 +502,7 @@ int rxrpc_recvmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len, release_sock(&rx->sk); -if (test_bit (RXRPC_CALL_RELEASED , &call->flags)) -BUG (); +BUG_ON (test_bit (RXRPC_CALL_RELEASED , &call->flags));if (test_bit (RXRPC_CALL_HAS_USERID , &call->flags)) {if (flags & MSG_CMSG_COMPAT) {--
2.7.4