[PATCH v1 0/3] coding-style.rst: document BUG() and WARN() rules

[PATCH v1 0/3] coding-style.rst: document BUG() and WARN() rules

[David Hildenbrand]

As it seems to be rather unclear if/when to use BUG(), BUG_ON(),
VM_BUG_ON(), WARN_ON_ONCE(), ... let's try to document the result of a
recent discussion.

Details can be found in patch #1.

RFC -> v1:
* "coding-style.rst: document BUG() and WARN() rules ("do not crash the
   kernel")"
 -> Rephrase/extend according to John
 -> Add some details regarding the use of panic()
* powerpc/prom_init: drop PROM_BUG()
 -> Added
* "checkpatch: warn on usage of VM_BUG_ON() and other BUG variants"
 -> Warn on more variants


Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@gmail.com>
Cc: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>
Cc: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
Cc: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Cc: Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>
Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Cc: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>

David Hildenbrand (3):
  coding-style.rst: document BUG() and WARN() rules ("do not crash the
    kernel")
  powerpc/prom_init: drop PROM_BUG()
  checkpatch: warn on usage of VM_BUG_ON() and other BUG variants

 Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_init.c        |  6 ---
 scripts/checkpatch.pl                  |  6 +--
 3 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

-- 
2.37.3

[PATCH v1 1/3] coding-style.rst: document BUG() and WARN() rules ("do not crash the kernel")

[David Hildenbrand]

Linus notes [1] that the introduction of new code that uses VM_BUG_ON()
is just as bad as BUG_ON(), because it will crash the kernel on
distributions that enable CONFIG_DEBUG_VM (like Fedora):

    VM_BUG_ON() has the exact same semantics as BUG_ON. It is literally
    no different, the only difference is "we can make the code smaller
    because these are less important". [2]

This resulted in a more generic discussion about usage of BUG() and
friends. While there might be corner cases that still deserve a BUG_ON(),
most BUG_ON() cases should simply use WARN_ON_ONCE() and implement a
recovery path if reasonable:

    The only possible case where BUG_ON can validly be used is "I have
    some fundamental data corruption and cannot possibly return an
    error". [2]

As a very good approximation is the general rule:

    "absolutely no new BUG_ON() calls _ever_" [2]

... not even if something really shouldn't ever happen and is merely for
documenting that an invariant always has to hold. However, there are sill
exceptions where BUG_ON() may be used:

    If you have a "this is major internal corruption, there's no way we can
    continue", then BUG_ON() is appropriate. [3]

There is only one good BUG_ON():

    Now, that said, there is one very valid sub-form of BUG_ON():
    BUILD_BUG_ON() is absolutely 100% fine. [2]

While WARN will also crash the machine with panic_on_warn set, that's
exactly to be expected:

    So we have two very different cases: the "virtual machine with good
    logging where a dead machine is fine" - use 'panic_on_warn'. And
    the actual real hardware with real drivers, running real loads by
    users. [4]

The basic idea is that warnings will similarly get reported by users
and be found during testing. However, in contrast to a BUG(), there is a
way to actually influence the expected behavior (e.g., panic_on_warn)
and to eventually keep the machine alive to extract some debug info.

Ingo notes that not all WARN_ON_ONCE cases need recovery. If we don't ever
expect this code to trigger in any case, recovery code is not really
helpful.

    I'd prefer to keep all these warnings 'simple' - i.e. no attempted
    recovery & control flow, unless we ever expect these to trigger.
    [5]

There have been different rules floating around that were never properly
documented. Let's try to clarify.

[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=wiEAH+ojSpAgx_Ep=NKPWHU8AdO3V56BXcCsU97oYJ1EA@mail.gmail.com
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=wg40EAZofO16Eviaj7mfqDhZ2gVEbvfsMf6gYzspRjYvw@mail.gmail.com
[2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=wit-DmhMfQErY29JSPjFgebx_Ld+pnerc4J2Ag990WwAA@mail.gmail.com
[4] https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=wgF7K2gSSpy=m_=K3Nov4zaceUX9puQf1TjkTJLA2XC_g@mail.gmail.com
[5] https://lore.kernel.org/r/YwIW+mVeZoTOxn%2F4@gmail.com

Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
---
 Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 61 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
index 03eb53fd029a..e05899cbfd49 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
@@ -1186,6 +1186,67 @@ expression used.  For instance:
 	#endif /* CONFIG_SOMETHING */
 
 
+22) Do not crash the kernel
+---------------------------
+
+In general, it is not the kernel developer's decision to crash the kernel.
+
+Avoid panic()
+=============
+
+panic() should be used with care and primarily only during system boot.
+panic() is, for example, acceptable when running out of memory during boot and
+not being able to continue.
+
+Use WARN() rather than BUG()
+============================
+
+Do not add new code that uses any of the BUG() variants, such as BUG(),
+BUG_ON(), or VM_BUG_ON(). Instead, use a WARN*() variant, preferably
+WARN_ON_ONCE(), and possibly with recovery code. Recovery code is not
+required if there is no reasonable way to at least partially recover.
+
+"I'm too lazy to do error handling" is not an excuse for using BUG(). Major
+internal corruptions with no way of continuing may still use BUG(), but need
+good justification.
+
+Use WARN_ON_ONCE() rather than WARN() or WARN_ON()
+**************************************************
+
+WARN_ON_ONCE() is generally preferred over WARN() or WARN_ON(), because it
+is common for a given warning condition, if it occurs at all, to occur
+multiple times. This can fill up and wrap the kernel log, and can even slow
+the system enough that the excessive logging turns into its own, additional
+problem.
+
+Do not WARN lightly
+*******************
+
+WARN*() is intended for unexpected, this-should-never-happen situations.
+WARN*() macros are not to be used for anything that is expected to happen
+during normal operation. These are not pre- or post-condition asserts, for
+example. Again: WARN*() must not be used for a condition that is expected
+to trigger easily, for example, by user space actions. pr_warn_once() is a
+possible alternative, if you need to notify the user of a problem.
+
+Do not worry about panic_on_warn users
+**************************************
+
+A few more words about panic_on_warn: Remember that ``panic_on_warn`` is an
+available kernel option, and that many users set this option. This is why
+there is a "Do not WARN lightly" writeup, above. However, the existence of
+panic_on_warn users is not a valid reason to avoid the judicious use
+WARN*(). That is because, whoever enables panic_on_warn has explicitly
+asked the kernel to crash if a WARN*() fires, and such users must be
+prepared to deal with the consequences of a system that is somewhat more
+likely to crash.
+
+Use BUILD_BUG_ON() for compile-time assertions
+**********************************************
+
+The use of BUILD_BUG_ON() is acceptable and encouraged, because it is a
+compile-time assertion that has no effect at runtime.
+
 Appendix I) References
 ----------------------
 
-- 
2.37.3

Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] coding-style.rst: document BUG() and WARN() rules ("do not crash the kernel")

[Kalle Valo]

David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> writes:

> Linus notes [1] that the introduction of new code that uses VM_BUG_ON()
> is just as bad as BUG_ON(), because it will crash the kernel on
> distributions that enable CONFIG_DEBUG_VM (like Fedora):
>
>     VM_BUG_ON() has the exact same semantics as BUG_ON. It is literally
>     no different, the only difference is "we can make the code smaller
>     because these are less important". [2]
>
> This resulted in a more generic discussion about usage of BUG() and
> friends. While there might be corner cases that still deserve a BUG_ON(),
> most BUG_ON() cases should simply use WARN_ON_ONCE() and implement a
> recovery path if reasonable:
>
>     The only possible case where BUG_ON can validly be used is "I have
>     some fundamental data corruption and cannot possibly return an
>     error". [2]
>
> As a very good approximation is the general rule:
>
>     "absolutely no new BUG_ON() calls _ever_" [2]
>
> ... not even if something really shouldn't ever happen and is merely for
> documenting that an invariant always has to hold. However, there are sill
> exceptions where BUG_ON() may be used:
>
>     If you have a "this is major internal corruption, there's no way we can
>     continue", then BUG_ON() is appropriate. [3]
>
> There is only one good BUG_ON():
>
>     Now, that said, there is one very valid sub-form of BUG_ON():
>     BUILD_BUG_ON() is absolutely 100% fine. [2]
>
> While WARN will also crash the machine with panic_on_warn set, that's
> exactly to be expected:
>
>     So we have two very different cases: the "virtual machine with good
>     logging where a dead machine is fine" - use 'panic_on_warn'. And
>     the actual real hardware with real drivers, running real loads by
>     users. [4]
>
> The basic idea is that warnings will similarly get reported by users
> and be found during testing. However, in contrast to a BUG(), there is a
> way to actually influence the expected behavior (e.g., panic_on_warn)
> and to eventually keep the machine alive to extract some debug info.
>
> Ingo notes that not all WARN_ON_ONCE cases need recovery. If we don't ever
> expect this code to trigger in any case, recovery code is not really
> helpful.
>
>     I'd prefer to keep all these warnings 'simple' - i.e. no attempted
>     recovery & control flow, unless we ever expect these to trigger.
>     [5]
>
> There have been different rules floating around that were never properly
> documented. Let's try to clarify.
>
> [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=wiEAH+ojSpAgx_Ep=NKPWHU8AdO3V56BXcCsU97oYJ1EA@mail.gmail.com
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=wg40EAZofO16Eviaj7mfqDhZ2gVEbvfsMf6gYzspRjYvw@mail.gmail.com
> [2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=wit-DmhMfQErY29JSPjFgebx_Ld+pnerc4J2Ag990WwAA@mail.gmail.com
> [4] https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=wgF7K2gSSpy=m_=K3Nov4zaceUX9puQf1TjkTJLA2XC_g@mail.gmail.com
> [5] https://lore.kernel.org/r/YwIW+mVeZoTOxn%2F4@gmail.com
>
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

[...]

> +Use WARN_ON_ONCE() rather than WARN() or WARN_ON()
> +**************************************************
> +
> +WARN_ON_ONCE() is generally preferred over WARN() or WARN_ON(), because it
> +is common for a given warning condition, if it occurs at all, to occur
> +multiple times. This can fill up and wrap the kernel log, and can even slow
> +the system enough that the excessive logging turns into its own, additional
> +problem.

FWIW I have had cases where WARN() messages caused a reboot, maybe
mention that here? In my case the logging was so excessive that the
watchdog wasn't updated and in the end the device was forcefully
rebooted.

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches

Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] coding-style.rst: document BUG() and WARN() rules ("do not crash the kernel")

[David Hildenbrand]

On 21.09.22 06:40, Kalle Valo wrote:
> David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> writes:
> 
>> Linus notes [1] that the introduction of new code that uses VM_BUG_ON()
>> is just as bad as BUG_ON(), because it will crash the kernel on
>> distributions that enable CONFIG_DEBUG_VM (like Fedora):
>>
>>      VM_BUG_ON() has the exact same semantics as BUG_ON. It is literally
>>      no different, the only difference is "we can make the code smaller
>>      because these are less important". [2]
>>
>> This resulted in a more generic discussion about usage of BUG() and
>> friends. While there might be corner cases that still deserve a BUG_ON(),
>> most BUG_ON() cases should simply use WARN_ON_ONCE() and implement a
>> recovery path if reasonable:
>>
>>      The only possible case where BUG_ON can validly be used is "I have
>>      some fundamental data corruption and cannot possibly return an
>>      error". [2]
>>
>> As a very good approximation is the general rule:
>>
>>      "absolutely no new BUG_ON() calls _ever_" [2]
>>
>> ... not even if something really shouldn't ever happen and is merely for
>> documenting that an invariant always has to hold. However, there are sill
>> exceptions where BUG_ON() may be used:
>>
>>      If you have a "this is major internal corruption, there's no way we can
>>      continue", then BUG_ON() is appropriate. [3]
>>
>> There is only one good BUG_ON():
>>
>>      Now, that said, there is one very valid sub-form of BUG_ON():
>>      BUILD_BUG_ON() is absolutely 100% fine. [2]
>>
>> While WARN will also crash the machine with panic_on_warn set, that's
>> exactly to be expected:
>>
>>      So we have two very different cases: the "virtual machine with good
>>      logging where a dead machine is fine" - use 'panic_on_warn'. And
>>      the actual real hardware with real drivers, running real loads by
>>      users. [4]
>>
>> The basic idea is that warnings will similarly get reported by users
>> and be found during testing. However, in contrast to a BUG(), there is a
>> way to actually influence the expected behavior (e.g., panic_on_warn)
>> and to eventually keep the machine alive to extract some debug info.
>>
>> Ingo notes that not all WARN_ON_ONCE cases need recovery. If we don't ever
>> expect this code to trigger in any case, recovery code is not really
>> helpful.
>>
>>      I'd prefer to keep all these warnings 'simple' - i.e. no attempted
>>      recovery & control flow, unless we ever expect these to trigger.
>>      [5]
>>
>> There have been different rules floating around that were never properly
>> documented. Let's try to clarify.
>>
>> [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=wiEAH+ojSpAgx_Ep=NKPWHU8AdO3V56BXcCsU97oYJ1EA@mail.gmail.com
>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=wg40EAZofO16Eviaj7mfqDhZ2gVEbvfsMf6gYzspRjYvw@mail.gmail.com
>> [2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=wit-DmhMfQErY29JSPjFgebx_Ld+pnerc4J2Ag990WwAA@mail.gmail.com
>> [4] https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=wgF7K2gSSpy=m_=K3Nov4zaceUX9puQf1TjkTJLA2XC_g@mail.gmail.com
>> [5] https://lore.kernel.org/r/YwIW+mVeZoTOxn%2F4@gmail.com
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> 
> [...]
> 
>> +Use WARN_ON_ONCE() rather than WARN() or WARN_ON()
>> +**************************************************
>> +
>> +WARN_ON_ONCE() is generally preferred over WARN() or WARN_ON(), because it
>> +is common for a given warning condition, if it occurs at all, to occur
>> +multiple times. This can fill up and wrap the kernel log, and can even slow
>> +the system enough that the excessive logging turns into its own, additional
>> +problem.
> 
> FWIW I have had cases where WARN() messages caused a reboot, maybe
> mention that here? In my case the logging was so excessive that the
> watchdog wasn't updated and in the end the device was forcefully
> rebooted.
> 

That should be covered by the last part, no? What would be your suggestion?

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] coding-style.rst: document BUG() and WARN() rules ("do not crash the kernel")

[Kalle Valo]

David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> writes:

>>> +Use WARN_ON_ONCE() rather than WARN() or WARN_ON()
>>> +**************************************************
>>> +
>>> +WARN_ON_ONCE() is generally preferred over WARN() or WARN_ON(), because it
>>> +is common for a given warning condition, if it occurs at all, to occur
>>> +multiple times. This can fill up and wrap the kernel log, and can even slow
>>> +the system enough that the excessive logging turns into its own, additional
>>> +problem.
>>
>> FWIW I have had cases where WARN() messages caused a reboot, maybe
>> mention that here? In my case the logging was so excessive that the
>> watchdog wasn't updated and in the end the device was forcefully
>> rebooted.
>>
>
> That should be covered by the last part, no? What would be your suggestion?

I was just thinking that maybe make it more obvious that even WARN_ON()
can crash the system, something along these lines:

"..., additional problem like stalling the system so much that it causes
a reboot."

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches

Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] coding-style.rst: document BUG() and WARN() rules ("do not crash the kernel")

[David Hildenbrand]

On 26.09.22 09:44, Kalle Valo wrote:
> David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> writes:
> 
>>>> +Use WARN_ON_ONCE() rather than WARN() or WARN_ON()
>>>> +**************************************************
>>>> +
>>>> +WARN_ON_ONCE() is generally preferred over WARN() or WARN_ON(), because it
>>>> +is common for a given warning condition, if it occurs at all, to occur
>>>> +multiple times. This can fill up and wrap the kernel log, and can even slow
>>>> +the system enough that the excessive logging turns into its own, additional
>>>> +problem.
>>>
>>> FWIW I have had cases where WARN() messages caused a reboot, maybe
>>> mention that here? In my case the logging was so excessive that the
>>> watchdog wasn't updated and in the end the device was forcefully
>>> rebooted.
>>>
>>
>> That should be covered by the last part, no? What would be your suggestion?
> 
> I was just thinking that maybe make it more obvious that even WARN_ON()
> can crash the system, something along these lines:
> 
> "..., additional problem like stalling the system so much that it causes
> a reboot."

Hi Kalle,

sorry for the late reply. Jonathan already queued v2 and sent it upstream.

I think that's it is already covered by the statement and that the 
additional example isn't required -- most of us learned the hard way 
that "excessive logging turns into its own problem" includes all weird 
kinds of kernel crashes. A panic/reboot due to a watchdog not firing is 
one such possible outcome.

Thanks!

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] coding-style.rst: document BUG() and WARN() rules ("do not crash the kernel")

[Akira Yokosawa]

Hi,

Minor nits on section title adornments.
See inline comments below.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 14:23:00 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Linus notes [1] that the introduction of new code that uses VM_BUG_ON()
> is just as bad as BUG_ON(), because it will crash the kernel on
> distributions that enable CONFIG_DEBUG_VM (like Fedora):
> 
>     VM_BUG_ON() has the exact same semantics as BUG_ON. It is literally
>     no different, the only difference is "we can make the code smaller
>     because these are less important". [2]
> 
> This resulted in a more generic discussion about usage of BUG() and
> friends. While there might be corner cases that still deserve a BUG_ON(),
> most BUG_ON() cases should simply use WARN_ON_ONCE() and implement a
> recovery path if reasonable:
> 
>     The only possible case where BUG_ON can validly be used is "I have
>     some fundamental data corruption and cannot possibly return an
>     error". [2]
> 
> As a very good approximation is the general rule:
> 
>     "absolutely no new BUG_ON() calls _ever_" [2]
> 
> ... not even if something really shouldn't ever happen and is merely for
> documenting that an invariant always has to hold. However, there are sill
> exceptions where BUG_ON() may be used:
> 
>     If you have a "this is major internal corruption, there's no way we can
>     continue", then BUG_ON() is appropriate. [3]
> 
> There is only one good BUG_ON():
> 
>     Now, that said, there is one very valid sub-form of BUG_ON():
>     BUILD_BUG_ON() is absolutely 100% fine. [2]
> 
> While WARN will also crash the machine with panic_on_warn set, that's
> exactly to be expected:
> 
>     So we have two very different cases: the "virtual machine with good
>     logging where a dead machine is fine" - use 'panic_on_warn'. And
>     the actual real hardware with real drivers, running real loads by
>     users. [4]
> 
> The basic idea is that warnings will similarly get reported by users
> and be found during testing. However, in contrast to a BUG(), there is a
> way to actually influence the expected behavior (e.g., panic_on_warn)
> and to eventually keep the machine alive to extract some debug info.
> 
> Ingo notes that not all WARN_ON_ONCE cases need recovery. If we don't ever
> expect this code to trigger in any case, recovery code is not really
> helpful.
> 
>     I'd prefer to keep all these warnings 'simple' - i.e. no attempted
>     recovery & control flow, unless we ever expect these to trigger.
>     [5]
> 
> There have been different rules floating around that were never properly
> documented. Let's try to clarify.
> 
> [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=wiEAH+ojSpAgx_Ep=NKPWHU8AdO3V56BXcCsU97oYJ1EA@mail.gmail.com
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=wg40EAZofO16Eviaj7mfqDhZ2gVEbvfsMf6gYzspRjYvw@mail.gmail.com
> [2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=wit-DmhMfQErY29JSPjFgebx_Ld+pnerc4J2Ag990WwAA@mail.gmail.com
> [4] https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=wgF7K2gSSpy=m_=K3Nov4zaceUX9puQf1TjkTJLA2XC_g@mail.gmail.com
> [5] https://lore.kernel.org/r/YwIW+mVeZoTOxn%2F4@gmail.com
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 61 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> index 03eb53fd029a..e05899cbfd49 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> @@ -1186,6 +1186,67 @@ expression used.  For instance:
>  	#endif /* CONFIG_SOMETHING */
>  
>  
> +22) Do not crash the kernel
> +---------------------------
> +
> +In general, it is not the kernel developer's decision to crash the kernel.
> +
> +Avoid panic()
> +=============
This looks to me like a subsection-level title.  The adornment symbol
needs to be:

   *************

> +
> +panic() should be used with care and primarily only during system boot.
> +panic() is, for example, acceptable when running out of memory during boot and
> +not being able to continue.
> +
> +Use WARN() rather than BUG()
> +============================
Ditto.

> +
> +Do not add new code that uses any of the BUG() variants, such as BUG(),
> +BUG_ON(), or VM_BUG_ON(). Instead, use a WARN*() variant, preferably
> +WARN_ON_ONCE(), and possibly with recovery code. Recovery code is not
> +required if there is no reasonable way to at least partially recover.
> +
> +"I'm too lazy to do error handling" is not an excuse for using BUG(). Major
> +internal corruptions with no way of continuing may still use BUG(), but need
> +good justification.
> +
> +Use WARN_ON_ONCE() rather than WARN() or WARN_ON()
> +**************************************************
These wrong adornment symbol confuse ReST parser of Sphinx and results in
the build error from "make htmldocs" at this title (long message folded):

    Sphinx parallel build error:

    docutils.utils.SystemMessage: /xxx/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst:1213:
     (SEVERE/4) Title level inconsistent:



Please fix in v2.

        Thanks, Akira

> +
> +WARN_ON_ONCE() is generally preferred over WARN() or WARN_ON(), because it
> +is common for a given warning condition, if it occurs at all, to occur
> +multiple times. This can fill up and wrap the kernel log, and can even slow
> +the system enough that the excessive logging turns into its own, additional
> +problem.
> +
[...]

Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] coding-style.rst: document BUG() and WARN() rules ("do not crash the kernel")

[David Hildenbrand]

>>   
>> +22) Do not crash the kernel
>> +---------------------------
>> +
>> +In general, it is not the kernel developer's decision to crash the kernel.
>> +
>> +Avoid panic()
>> +=============
> This looks to me like a subsection-level title.  The adornment symbol
> needs to be:
> 
>     *************
> 
>> +
>> +panic() should be used with care and primarily only during system boot.
>> +panic() is, for example, acceptable when running out of memory during boot and
>> +not being able to continue.
>> +
>> +Use WARN() rather than BUG()
>> +============================
> Ditto.
> 
>> +
>> +Do not add new code that uses any of the BUG() variants, such as BUG(),
>> +BUG_ON(), or VM_BUG_ON(). Instead, use a WARN*() variant, preferably
>> +WARN_ON_ONCE(), and possibly with recovery code. Recovery code is not
>> +required if there is no reasonable way to at least partially recover.
>> +
>> +"I'm too lazy to do error handling" is not an excuse for using BUG(). Major
>> +internal corruptions with no way of continuing may still use BUG(), but need
>> +good justification.
>> +
>> +Use WARN_ON_ONCE() rather than WARN() or WARN_ON()
>> +**************************************************
> These wrong adornment symbol confuse ReST parser of Sphinx and results in
> the build error from "make htmldocs" at this title (long message folded):


Thanks,

the following on top should do the trick:


diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
index e05899cbfd49..9efde65ac2f3 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
@@ -1192,14 +1192,14 @@ expression used.  For instance:
  In general, it is not the kernel developer's decision to crash the kernel.
  
  Avoid panic()
-=============
+*************
  
  panic() should be used with care and primarily only during system boot.
  panic() is, for example, acceptable when running out of memory during boot and
  not being able to continue.
  
  Use WARN() rather than BUG()
-============================
+****************************
  
  Do not add new code that uses any of the BUG() variants, such as BUG(),
  BUG_ON(), or VM_BUG_ON(). Instead, use a WARN*() variant, preferably


-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] coding-style.rst: document BUG() and WARN() rules ("do not crash the kernel")

[John Hubbard]

On 9/20/22 05:23, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=wiEAH+ojSpAgx_Ep=NKPWHU8AdO3V56BXcCsU97oYJ1EA@mail.gmail.com
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=wg40EAZofO16Eviaj7mfqDhZ2gVEbvfsMf6gYzspRjYvw@mail.gmail.com
> [2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=wit-DmhMfQErY29JSPjFgebx_Ld+pnerc4J2Ag990WwAA@mail.gmail.com

s/2/3/

...
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> index 03eb53fd029a..e05899cbfd49 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> @@ -1186,6 +1186,67 @@ expression used.  For instance:
>  	#endif /* CONFIG_SOMETHING */
>  
>  
> +22) Do not crash the kernel
> +---------------------------
> +
> +In general, it is not the kernel developer's decision to crash the kernel.

What do you think of this alternate wording:

In general, the decision to crash the kernel belongs to the user, rather
than to the kernel developer.


> +
> +Avoid panic()
> +=============
> +
> +panic() should be used with care and primarily only during system boot.
> +panic() is, for example, acceptable when running out of memory during boot and
> +not being able to continue.
> +
> +Use WARN() rather than BUG()
> +============================
> +
> +Do not add new code that uses any of the BUG() variants, such as BUG(),
> +BUG_ON(), or VM_BUG_ON(). Instead, use a WARN*() variant, preferably
> +WARN_ON_ONCE(), and possibly with recovery code. Recovery code is not
> +required if there is no reasonable way to at least partially recover.
> +
> +"I'm too lazy to do error handling" is not an excuse for using BUG(). Major
> +internal corruptions with no way of continuing may still use BUG(), but need
> +good justification.
> +
> +Use WARN_ON_ONCE() rather than WARN() or WARN_ON()
> +**************************************************
> +
> +WARN_ON_ONCE() is generally preferred over WARN() or WARN_ON(), because it
> +is common for a given warning condition, if it occurs at all, to occur
> +multiple times. This can fill up and wrap the kernel log, and can even slow
> +the system enough that the excessive logging turns into its own, additional
> +problem.
> +
> +Do not WARN lightly
> +*******************
> +
> +WARN*() is intended for unexpected, this-should-never-happen situations.
> +WARN*() macros are not to be used for anything that is expected to happen
> +during normal operation. These are not pre- or post-condition asserts, for
> +example. Again: WARN*() must not be used for a condition that is expected
> +to trigger easily, for example, by user space actions. pr_warn_once() is a
> +possible alternative, if you need to notify the user of a problem.
> +
> +Do not worry about panic_on_warn users
> +**************************************
> +
> +A few more words about panic_on_warn: Remember that ``panic_on_warn`` is an
> +available kernel option, and that many users set this option. This is why
> +there is a "Do not WARN lightly" writeup, above. However, the existence of
> +panic_on_warn users is not a valid reason to avoid the judicious use
> +WARN*(). That is because, whoever enables panic_on_warn has explicitly
> +asked the kernel to crash if a WARN*() fires, and such users must be
> +prepared to deal with the consequences of a system that is somewhat more
> +likely to crash.
> +
> +Use BUILD_BUG_ON() for compile-time assertions
> +**********************************************
> +
> +The use of BUILD_BUG_ON() is acceptable and encouraged, because it is a
> +compile-time assertion that has no effect at runtime.
> +
>  Appendix I) References
>  ----------------------
>  

I like the wording, it feels familiar somehow! :)

Reviewed-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>

thanks,

-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA

Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] coding-style.rst: document BUG() and WARN() rules ("do not crash the kernel")

[John Hubbard]

On 9/22/22 19:26, John Hubbard wrote:
> 
> Reviewed-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
> 

I forgot to mention that I had applied your fix to Akira's
issue, before reviewing. So that fix works and builds and
looks nice too.

thanks,

-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA

Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] coding-style.rst: document BUG() and WARN() rules ("do not crash the kernel")

[David Hildenbrand]

On 23.09.22 04:26, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 9/20/22 05:23, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=wiEAH+ojSpAgx_Ep=NKPWHU8AdO3V56BXcCsU97oYJ1EA@mail.gmail.com
>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=wg40EAZofO16Eviaj7mfqDhZ2gVEbvfsMf6gYzspRjYvw@mail.gmail.com
>> [2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=wit-DmhMfQErY29JSPjFgebx_Ld+pnerc4J2Ag990WwAA@mail.gmail.com
> 
> s/2/3/

Thanks!

> 
> ...
>> diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
>> index 03eb53fd029a..e05899cbfd49 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
>> @@ -1186,6 +1186,67 @@ expression used.  For instance:
>>   	#endif /* CONFIG_SOMETHING */
>>   
>>   
>> +22) Do not crash the kernel
>> +---------------------------
>> +
>> +In general, it is not the kernel developer's decision to crash the kernel.
> 
> What do you think of this alternate wording:
> 
> In general, the decision to crash the kernel belongs to the user, rather
> than to the kernel developer.

Ack

[...]

> I like the wording, it feels familiar somehow! :)

:)

> 
> Reviewed-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>

Thanks!

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

[PATCH v1 2/3] powerpc/prom_init: drop PROM_BUG()

[David Hildenbrand]

Unused, let's drop it.

Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
---
 arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_init.c | 6 ------
 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_init.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_init.c
index a6669c40c1db..d464ba412084 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_init.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_init.c
@@ -96,12 +96,6 @@ static int of_workarounds __prombss;
 #define OF_WA_CLAIM	1	/* do phys/virt claim separately, then map */
 #define OF_WA_LONGTRAIL	2	/* work around longtrail bugs */
 
-#define PROM_BUG() do {						\
-        prom_printf("kernel BUG at %s line 0x%x!\n",		\
-		    __FILE__, __LINE__);			\
-	__builtin_trap();					\
-} while (0)
-
 #ifdef DEBUG_PROM
 #define prom_debug(x...)	prom_printf(x)
 #else
-- 
2.37.3

Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] powerpc/prom_init: drop PROM_BUG()

[Michael Ellerman]

David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> writes:
> Unused, let's drop it.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> ---
>  arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_init.c | 6 ------
>  1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)

Thanks. I'll take this one via the powerpc tree, and the others can go
via wherever?

cheers

> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_init.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_init.c
> index a6669c40c1db..d464ba412084 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_init.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_init.c
> @@ -96,12 +96,6 @@ static int of_workarounds __prombss;
>  #define OF_WA_CLAIM	1	/* do phys/virt claim separately, then map */
>  #define OF_WA_LONGTRAIL	2	/* work around longtrail bugs */
>  
> -#define PROM_BUG() do {						\
> -        prom_printf("kernel BUG at %s line 0x%x!\n",		\
> -		    __FILE__, __LINE__);			\
> -	__builtin_trap();					\
> -} while (0)
> -
>  #ifdef DEBUG_PROM
>  #define prom_debug(x...)	prom_printf(x)
>  #else
> -- 
> 2.37.3

Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] powerpc/prom_init: drop PROM_BUG()

[David Hildenbrand]

On 21.09.22 15:02, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> writes:
>> Unused, let's drop it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>   arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_init.c | 6 ------
>>   1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
> 
> Thanks. I'll take this one via the powerpc tree, and the others can go
> via wherever?

Makes sense; I'll drop this patch in case I have to resend, assuming 
it's in your tree.

Thanks!

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

[PATCH v1 3/3] checkpatch: warn on usage of VM_BUG_ON() and other BUG variants

[David Hildenbrand]

checkpatch does not point out that VM_BUG_ON() and friends should be
avoided, however, Linus notes:

    VM_BUG_ON() has the exact same semantics as BUG_ON. It is literally
    no different, the only difference is "we can make the code smaller
    because these are less important". [1]

So let's warn on VM_BUG_ON() and other BUG variants as well. While at it,
make it clearer that the kernel really shouldn't be crashed.

As there are some subsystem BUG macros that actually don't end up crashing
the kernel -- for example, KVM_BUG_ON() -- exclude these manually.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=wg40EAZofO16Eviaj7mfqDhZ2gVEbvfsMf6gYzspRjYvw@mail.gmail.com

Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
---
 scripts/checkpatch.pl | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index 79e759aac543..21f3a79aa46f 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -4695,12 +4695,12 @@ sub process {
 			}
 		}
 
-# avoid BUG() or BUG_ON()
-		if ($line =~ /\b(?:BUG|BUG_ON)\b/) {
+# do not use BUG() or variants
+		if ($line =~ /\b(?!AA_|BUILD_|DCCP_|IDA_|KVM_|RWLOCK_|snd_|SPIN_)(?:[a-zA-Z_]*_)?BUG(?:_ON)?(?:_[A-Z_]+)?\s*\(/) {
 			my $msg_level = \&WARN;
 			$msg_level = \&CHK if ($file);
 			&{$msg_level}("AVOID_BUG",
-				      "Avoid crashing the kernel - try using WARN_ON & recovery code rather than BUG() or BUG_ON()\n" . $herecurr);
+				      "Do not crash the kernel unless it is unavoidable - use WARN_ON_ONCE & recovery code (if reasonable) rather than BUG() or variants.\n" . $herecurr);
 		}
 
 # avoid LINUX_VERSION_CODE
-- 
2.37.3

Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] checkpatch: warn on usage of VM_BUG_ON() and other BUG variants

[John Hubbard]

On 9/20/22 05:23, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> checkpatch does not point out that VM_BUG_ON() and friends should be
> avoided, however, Linus notes:
> 
>     VM_BUG_ON() has the exact same semantics as BUG_ON. It is literally
>     no different, the only difference is "we can make the code smaller
>     because these are less important". [1]
> 
> So let's warn on VM_BUG_ON() and other BUG variants as well. While at it,
> make it clearer that the kernel really shouldn't be crashed.
> 
> As there are some subsystem BUG macros that actually don't end up crashing
> the kernel -- for example, KVM_BUG_ON() -- exclude these manually.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=wg40EAZofO16Eviaj7mfqDhZ2gVEbvfsMf6gYzspRjYvw@mail.gmail.com
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> ---
>  scripts/checkpatch.pl | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> index 79e759aac543..21f3a79aa46f 100755
> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -4695,12 +4695,12 @@ sub process {
>  			}
>  		}
>  
> -# avoid BUG() or BUG_ON()
> -		if ($line =~ /\b(?:BUG|BUG_ON)\b/) {
> +# do not use BUG() or variants
> +		if ($line =~ /\b(?!AA_|BUILD_|DCCP_|IDA_|KVM_|RWLOCK_|snd_|SPIN_)(?:[a-zA-Z_]*_)?BUG(?:_ON)?(?:_[A-Z_]+)?\s*\(/) {

Should this be a separate patch? Adding a bunch of exceptions to the BUG() rules is 
a separate and distinct thing from adding VM_BUG_ON() and other *BUG*() variants to
the mix.

>  			my $msg_level = \&WARN;
>  			$msg_level = \&CHK if ($file);
>  			&{$msg_level}("AVOID_BUG",
> -				      "Avoid crashing the kernel - try using WARN_ON & recovery code rather than BUG() or BUG_ON()\n" . $herecurr);
> +				      "Do not crash the kernel unless it is unavoidable - use WARN_ON_ONCE & recovery code (if reasonable) rather than BUG() or variants.\n" . $herecurr);

Here's a requested tweak, to clean up the output and fix punctuation:

"Avoid crashing the kernel--use WARN_ON_ONCE() plus recovery code (if feasible) instead of BUG() or variants.\n" . $herecurr);


thanks,

-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA

Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] checkpatch: warn on usage of VM_BUG_ON() and other BUG variants

[Joe Perches]

On Thu, 2022-09-22 at 19:05 -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 9/20/22 05:23, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > checkpatch does not point out that VM_BUG_ON() and friends should be
> > avoided, however, Linus notes:
> > 
> >     VM_BUG_ON() has the exact same semantics as BUG_ON. It is literally
> >     no different, the only difference is "we can make the code smaller
> >     because these are less important". [1]
> > 
> > So let's warn on VM_BUG_ON() and other BUG variants as well. While at it,
> > make it clearer that the kernel really shouldn't be crashed.
> > 
> > As there are some subsystem BUG macros that actually don't end up crashing
> > the kernel -- for example, KVM_BUG_ON() -- exclude these manually.
> > 
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=wg40EAZofO16Eviaj7mfqDhZ2gVEbvfsMf6gYzspRjYvw@mail.gmail.com
[]
> > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
[]
> > @@ -4695,12 +4695,12 @@ sub process {
> >  			}
> >  		}
> >  
> > -# avoid BUG() or BUG_ON()
> > -		if ($line =~ /\b(?:BUG|BUG_ON)\b/) {
> > +# do not use BUG() or variants
> > +		if ($line =~ /\b(?!AA_|BUILD_|DCCP_|IDA_|KVM_|RWLOCK_|snd_|SPIN_)(?:[a-zA-Z_]*_)?BUG(?:_ON)?(?:_[A-Z_]+)?\s*\(/) {
> 
> Should this be a separate patch? Adding a bunch of exceptions to the BUG() rules is 
> a separate and distinct thing from adding VM_BUG_ON() and other *BUG*() variants to
> the mix.

Not in my opinion.

> >  			my $msg_level = \&WARN;
> >  			$msg_level = \&CHK if ($file);
> >  			&{$msg_level}("AVOID_BUG",
> > -				      "Avoid crashing the kernel - try using WARN_ON & recovery code rather than BUG() or BUG_ON()\n" . $herecurr);
> > +				      "Do not crash the kernel unless it is unavoidable - use WARN_ON_ONCE & recovery code (if reasonable) rather than BUG() or variants.\n" . $herecurr);
> 
> Here's a requested tweak, to clean up the output and fix punctuation:
> 
> "Avoid crashing the kernel--use WARN_ON_ONCE() plus recovery code (if feasible) instead of BUG() or variants.\n" . $herecurr);

Fixing punctuation here would be removing the trailing period as checkpatch
only has periods for multi-sentence output messages.

And I think that "Do not crash" is a stronger statement than "Avoid crashing"
so I prefer the original suggestion but it's not a big deal either way.

Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] checkpatch: warn on usage of VM_BUG_ON() and other BUG variants

[John Hubbard]

On 9/22/22 19:11, Joe Perches wrote:
>> Should this be a separate patch? Adding a bunch of exceptions to the BUG() rules is 
>> a separate and distinct thing from adding VM_BUG_ON() and other *BUG*() variants to
>> the mix.
> 
> Not in my opinion.

OK, then. :)

> 
>>>  			my $msg_level = \&WARN;
>>>  			$msg_level = \&CHK if ($file);
>>>  			&{$msg_level}("AVOID_BUG",
>>> -				      "Avoid crashing the kernel - try using WARN_ON & recovery code rather than BUG() or BUG_ON()\n" . $herecurr);
>>> +				      "Do not crash the kernel unless it is unavoidable - use WARN_ON_ONCE & recovery code (if reasonable) rather than BUG() or variants.\n" . $herecurr);
>>
>> Here's a requested tweak, to clean up the output and fix punctuation:
>>
>> "Avoid crashing the kernel--use WARN_ON_ONCE() plus recovery code (if feasible) instead of BUG() or variants.\n" . $herecurr);
> 
> Fixing punctuation here would be removing the trailing period as checkpatch
> only has periods for multi-sentence output messages.

OK, let's do that too. 

> 
> And I think that "Do not crash" is a stronger statement than "Avoid crashing"
> so I prefer the original suggestion but it's not a big deal either way.

Yes, stronger wording is better. So how about this:

"Do not crash the kernel unless it is absolutely unavoidable--use WARN_ON_ONCE() plus recovery code (if feasible) instead of BUG() or variants\n" . $herecurr);


thanks,

-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA

Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] checkpatch: warn on usage of VM_BUG_ON() and other BUG variants

[David Hildenbrand]

>> And I think that "Do not crash" is a stronger statement than "Avoid crashing"
>> so I prefer the original suggestion but it's not a big deal either way.
> 
> Yes, stronger wording is better. So how about this:
> 
> "Do not crash the kernel unless it is absolutely unavoidable--use WARN_ON_ONCE() plus recovery code (if feasible) instead of BUG() or variants\n" . $herecurr);

Okay, let's use that.

Thanks!

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

Re: (subset) [PATCH v1 0/3] coding-style.rst: document BUG() and WARN() rules

[Michael Ellerman]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 14:22:59 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> As it seems to be rather unclear if/when to use BUG(), BUG_ON(),
> VM_BUG_ON(), WARN_ON_ONCE(), ... let's try to document the result of a
> recent discussion.
> 
> Details can be found in patch #1.
> 
> RFC -> v1:
> * "coding-style.rst: document BUG() and WARN() rules ("do not crash the
>    kernel")"
>  -> Rephrase/extend according to John
>  -> Add some details regarding the use of panic()
> * powerpc/prom_init: drop PROM_BUG()
>  -> Added
> * "checkpatch: warn on usage of VM_BUG_ON() and other BUG variants"
>  -> Warn on more variants
> 
> [...]

Patch 2 applied to powerpc/next.

[2/3] powerpc/prom_init: drop PROM_BUG()
      https://git.kernel.org/powerpc/c/c4167aec98524fa4511b3222303a758b532b6009

cheers