Re: [RFC] asm-generic: default BUG_ON(x) to "if(x) BUG()"

Josh Triplett
2015-11-23T21:17:55Z

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 09:58:22PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 23 November 2015 12:16:36 Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Two comments inline below.
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 05:25:28PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > When CONFIG_BUG is disabled, BUG_ON() will only evaluate the condition,
> > > but will not actually stop the current thread. GCC warns about a couple
> > > of BUG_ON() users where this actually leads to further undefined
> > > behavior:
> > >
> > > include/linux/ceph/osdmap.h: In function 'ceph_can_shift_osds':
> > > include/linux/ceph/osdmap.h:54:1: warning: control reaches end of non-void function
> > > fs/ext4/inode.c: In function 'ext4_map_blocks':
> > > fs/ext4/inode.c:548:5: warning: 'retval' may be used uninitialized in this function
> > > drivers/mfd/db8500-prcmu.c: In function 'prcmu_config_clkout':
> > > drivers/mfd/db8500-prcmu.c:762:10: warning: 'div_mask' may be used uninitialized in this function
> > > drivers/mfd/db8500-prcmu.c:769:13: warning: 'mask' may be used uninitialized in this function
> > > drivers/mfd/db8500-prcmu.c:757:7: warning: 'bits' may be used uninitialized in this function
> > > drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_core.c: In function 'univ8250_release_irq':
> > > drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_core.c:252:18: warning: 'i' may be used uninitialized in this function
> > > drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_core.c:235:19: note: 'i' was declared here
> >
> > Eliminating the spurious warnings seems like a good reason to do this.
>
> Yes, that's where I initially came from anyway. Note that they are
> mostly not spurious, they warn about something actually going really
> wrong here (undefined behavior) though only after we noticed that it was
> already pretty wrong (BUG_ON).

I meant "spurious" in the sense that they shouldn't get fixed by
changing the code near the warning.

> > > There is an obvious conflict of interest here: on the one hand, someone
> > > who disables CONFIG_BUG() will want the kernel to be as small as possible
> > > and doesn't care about printing error messages to a console that nobody
> > > looks at. On the other hand, running into a BUG_ON() condition means that
> > > something has gone wrong, and we probably want to also stop doing things
> > > that might cause data corruption.
> >
> > Seems like you should adjust the Kconfig description for 'config BUG' in
> > init/Kconfig to account for BUG/BUG_ON still stopping the machine.
>
> Yes, probably a good idea.
>
> > (For that matter, I can't help but wonder if we could then consolidate
> > CONFIG_BUG and CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE, since we now only semantically
> > change whether and how much we print. However, that could happen in
> > another patch.)
>
> I think it still makes sense to keep them separate. With CONFIG_BUG=n,
> we get no bug_table at all, while with CONFIG_BUGVERBOSE=n, we avoid
> most of the data fields of the bug table but still try to print a
> message tellung us that we hit a BUG().

I can't help but wonder what value the bug_table really has in the
absence of BUGVERBOSE though. But in any case, not something this patch
should change.

> > > This patch picks the second choice, and changes the NOP to BUG(), which
> > > normally stops the execution of the current thread in some form (endless
> > > loop or a trap). This follows the logic we applied in a4b5d580e078 ("bug:
> > > Make BUG() always stop the machine").
> > >
> > > For ARM multi_v7_defconfig, the size slightly increases:
> > >
> > > section CONFIG_BUG=y CONFIG_BUG=n CONFIG_BUG=n+patch
> > >
> > > .text 8320248 | 8180944 | 8207688
> > > .rodata 3633720 | 3567144 | 3570648
> > > __bug_table 32508 | --- | ---
> > > __modver 692 | 1584 | 2176
> > > .init.text 558132 | 548300 | 550088
> > > .exit.text 12380 | 12256 | 12380
> > > .data 1016672 | 1016064 | 1016128
> > > Total 14622556 | 14374510 | 14407326
> > >
> > > So instead of saving 1.70% of the total image size, we only save 1.48%
> >
> > Could you please include numbers for tinyconfig as well? Percentages
> > get larger when the numbers get smaller.
>
> not sure where I can find tinyconfig,

"make tinyconfig" in the standard kernel tree. It turns on a few
options that make the kernel even smaller.

> this is what I get for ARM allnoconfig
> (only totals, let me know if you need more details):
>
> original: 961307
> patched: 969167 (+0.82%)
> CONFIG_BUG: 994695 (+3.36%)

"patched" here represents allnoconfig with your patch added, but with
CONFIG_BUG still turned off?

Doesn't seem too bad. Rather large, but I think we ought to fix the
problem by 1) reducing the number of uses of BUG_ON in the kernel, and
2) compiling out more bits of the kernel entirely, including their calls
to BUG_ON. Eliminating a class of warnings that cause people grief when
trying to build and contribute to tiny kernels seems worth it, at least
for now.

> > > by turning off CONFIG_BUG, but in return we can ensure that we don't run
> > > into cases of uninitialized variable or return code uses when something
> > > bad happens. Aside from that, we significantly reduce the number of
> > > warnings in randconfig builds, which makes it easier to fix the warnings
> > > about other problems.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/asm-generic/bug.h b/include/asm-generic/bug.h
> > > index 630dd2372238..58bd1f08c5c7 100644
> > > --- a/include/asm-generic/bug.h
> > > +++ b/include/asm-generic/bug.h
> > > @@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ extern void warn_slowpath_null(const char *file, const int line);
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > #ifndef HAVE_ARCH_BUG_ON
> > > -#define BUG_ON(condition) do { if (condition) ; } while (0)
> > > +#define BUG_ON(condition) do { if (condition) BUG(); } while (0)
> >
> > This makes BUG_ON in the !CONFIG_BUG case almost identical to the
> > CONFIG_BUG=y case, except for the use of unlikely(condition), which this
> > ought to do as well.
> >
> > Given that, could you pull the definition *out* of the #ifdef/#else for
> > CONFIG_BUG entirely, and define it the same way in both cases?
>
> Yes, I thought about that already and decided to keep the patch simple
> instead. I can do that of course once we get consensus on the general
> approach.

Looking at the thread, I think you have it at this point.

And personally I value simplicity of the patched code over simplicity of
the patch. :)

- Josh Triplett