From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751630AbdF1L0N (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 28 Jun 2017 07:26:13 -0400
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:45238 "EHLO mx1.suse.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751524AbdF1L0H (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 28 Jun 2017 07:26:07 -0400
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 13:26:04 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Cc: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com>,
        Daniel Micay <danielmicay@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kref: Avoid null pointer dereference after WARN
Message-ID: <20170628112604.GA5234@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20170627035215.GA132342@beast>
 <20170627070626.GH29909@kroah.com>
 <20170627110013.GA3026@zx2c4.com>
 <20170627144918.GG23705@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
 <CAHmME9q16fXY99v808qq0TdQCNfbicFP8swe9E0Rou0oOvNCZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170627192939.GJ23705@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170627192939.GJ23705@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue 27-06-17 12:29:39, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 09:11:28PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
[...]
> > The bigger question, though, is the value of these checks in the first
> > place. Has anybody written a coccinelle check to look into this
> > statically? Has it historically been a useful thing for driver
> > developers to have? Is it good defense in depth or is it overkill? At
> > the very least, the original authors of kref thought a WARN_ON was
> > warranted, which means probably a BUG_ON is a sensible fix, until
> > somebody does the work of investigating these more careful questions.
> 
> Right that's the question that should have been answered before
> this patch.
> 
> I don't think it was ever intended to be a defense, just as a hint
> for driver developers.
> 
> My suspicion is that they're mostly useless.

Completely agreed here!
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs