From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
Cc: xfs-oss <xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfsprogs: use abort() not ASSERT(0) for impossible switch case
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 08:50:48 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140821225048.GQ26465@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53F62D12.8010505@sandeen.net>
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 12:32:02PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> The original reason for the expletive below has been lost
> in the mists of time
Oh, no it hasn't.
That's a switch statement using enums for the cases and so if you
don't define every enum value in the switch statement gcc throws
warnings. IOWs, the switch statement has to either define them all or
contain a "default" case, either of which *does not need to exist* because
other code guarantees that the value of cur->bc_btnum is within
the valid range.
So, we have to put an invalid value into the switch statement to
make gcc shut the fuck up, and the ASSERT(0) is there to indicate
that "this should never, ever happen".
> libxfs, and this leads static analysis checkers to believe that
> XFS_BTNUM_MAX is possible, and that we might overflow an array
> later when using it as an index.
>
> We can shut this up and mark it as truly impossible with abort().
Random differences between kernel and user code to keep static
analysis checkers happy is not a good road to follow, because it
will just cause patch failures and people wondering "why is this
randomly different to the kernel code?". So, no, I don't really like
this approach.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-08-21 22:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-21 17:32 [PATCH] xfsprogs: use abort() not ASSERT(0) for impossible switch case Eric Sandeen
2014-08-21 17:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-08-21 17:45 ` Eric Sandeen
2014-08-21 18:27 ` [PATCH V2] xfsprogs: use ASSERT_ALWAYS " Eric Sandeen
2014-08-21 22:55 ` Dave Chinner
2014-08-21 22:50 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140821225048.GQ26465@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=sandeen@sandeen.net \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox