Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next] tcp: socket-specific version of WARN_ON_ONCE()

[Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 09:16:16PM +0000, Iwashima, Kuniyuki wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 2022, at 21:48, Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 10:00:55AM +0900, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:

<snip>

> >>> +void tcp_sock_warn(const struct tcp_sock *tp)
> >>> +{
> >>> +   const struct sock *sk = (const struct sock *)tp;
> >>> +   struct inet_sock *inet = inet_sk(sk);
> >>> +   struct inet_connection_sock *icsk = inet_csk(sk);
> >>> +
> >>> +   WARN_ON(1);
> >>> +
> >>> +   if (!tp)
> >> 
> >> Is this needed ?
> > 
> > We are de-referencing tp/sk in the lines below, so, I think it is safe to
> > check if they are not NULL before the de-refencing it.
> 
> tp->snd_cwnd is accessed just after this WARN, 
> so I thought there were no cases where tp is NULL.

Oh, important to say that we want to re-use this macro on other places
as well. This initial usage (on tcp_snd_cwnd_set()) is just for the
initial patch. I see value replacing some WARN_ON_*() by
TCP_SOCK_WARN_ON_ONCE() in other parts of the code, so, this check is to
protect this warning when TCP_SOCK_WARN_ON_ONCE() is called from
different places.

Anyway, I definitely can remove the check here, but, we might want to
re-add it later, as we replace some WARN_ON_* by TCP_SOCK_WARN_ON_*();

> I think this additional if could confuse future readers and 
> want to make sure if there is such a case.

How come checking if a pointer is valid before de-refencing it could
confuse readers?

Thank you for the review!