Re: reiserfs: inconsistent format in __RASSERT
On 03/16/2015 09:05 PM, Jeff Mahoney wrote: > On 3/16/15 8:55 AM, Nicolas Iooss wrote: >> * I missed something in my analysis and in fact the PID argument >> is processed by reiserfs_panic (don't know where), or * the PID >> argument is not used and should be removed, or > > This, please. reiserfs_panic calls BUG(), which will contain the PID. Whoo, thanks for the quick answer. I will send a patch as soon as possible. >> * the PID is useful and "[%i]" should be added somewhere in the >> format string. > >> Which one would you prefer? > >> Also, I found this when building the kernel with "allmodconfig" on >> x86_64. With "defconfig" gcc does not report this error, but I >> guess it is because without CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK, __RASSERT is >> never used. > > Yeah. If reiserfs was more actively maintained, what is currently > protected by CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK would be handled a bit better. > There are ton of fsfuzzer bugs that would be caught by it and should > be handled using reiserfs_error. Unfortunately, it also enables some > heavy checks that make the file system very slow. > > Thanks for looking into this. It looks like it's been broken for a > while. I suppose the only saving grace is that it would crash in a > path that crashes on purpose a few lines later. Yes, and this is also why I believe this bug is not a security issue nor something which needs an urgent fix. Thanks, Nicolas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: reiserfs: inconsistent format in __RASSERT
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3/16/15 8:55 AM, Nicolas Iooss wrote:
> Hello,
>
> When adding a __printf attribute to reiserfs_panic, gcc reported
> an inconsistent format for __RASSERT. This macro is currently
> defined in fs/reiserfs/reiserfs.h as:
>
> reiserfs_panic(NULL, "assertion failure", "(" #cond ") at " \
> __FILE__ ":%i:%s: " format "\n",\
> in_interrupt() ? -1 : task_pid_nr(current), \ __LINE__,
> __func__ , ##args);
>
> In the format string, the first parameter is a line number, but in
> the arguments there is a PID before. Before c3a9c2109f84
> ("reiserfs: rework reiserfs_panic") [1], the format string began
> with "reiserfs[%i]" [2], which explains the PID in the arguments.
>
> I see three possibilities:
>
> * I missed something in my analysis and in fact the PID argument
> is processed by reiserfs_panic (don't know where), or * the PID
> argument is not used and should be removed, or
This, please. reiserfs_panic calls BUG(), which will contain the PID.
> * the PID is useful and "[%i]" should be added somewhere in the
> format string.
>
> Which one would you prefer?
>
> Also, I found this when building the kernel with "allmodconfig" on
> x86_64. With "defconfig" gcc does not report this error, but I
> guess it is because without CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK, __RASSERT is
> never used.
Yeah. If reiserfs was more actively maintained, what is currently
protected by CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK would be handled a bit better.
There are ton of fsfuzzer bugs that would be caught by it and should
be handled using reiserfs_error. Unfortunately, it also enables some
heavy checks that make the file system very slow.
Thanks for looking into this. It looks like it's been broken for a
while. I suppose the only saving grace is that it would crash in a
path that crashes on purpose a few lines later.
- -Jeff
- --
Jeff Mahoney
SUSE Labs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin)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=Pcpd
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
reiserfs: inconsistent format in __RASSERT
Hello,
When adding a __printf attribute to reiserfs_panic, gcc reported an
inconsistent format for __RASSERT. This macro is currently defined in
fs/reiserfs/reiserfs.h as:
reiserfs_panic(NULL, "assertion failure", "(" #cond ") at " \
__FILE__ ":%i:%s: " format "\n",\
in_interrupt() ? -1 : task_pid_nr(current), \
__LINE__, __func__ , ##args);
In the format string, the first parameter is a line number, but in the
arguments there is a PID before. Before c3a9c2109f84 ("reiserfs: rework
reiserfs_panic") [1], the format string began with "reiserfs[%i]" [2],
which explains the PID in the arguments.
I see three possibilities:
* I missed something in my analysis and in fact the PID argument is
processed by reiserfs_panic (don't know where), or
* the PID argument is not used and should be removed, or
* the PID is useful and "[%i]" should be added somewhere in the format
string.
Which one would you prefer?
Also, I found this when building the kernel with "allmodconfig" on
x86_64. With "defconfig" gcc does not report this error, but I guess it
is because without CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK, __RASSERT is never used.
Regards,
Nicolas
[1]
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=c3a9c2109f84882b9b3178f6b1838d550d3df0ec
[2]
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/linux/reiserfs_fs.h?id=78b6513d2881f1a759fb9825a036d926392de084#n91
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: reiserfs: inconsistent format in __RASSERT
On 03/16/2015 09:05 PM, Jeff Mahoney wrote: On 3/16/15 8:55 AM, Nicolas Iooss wrote: * I missed something in my analysis and in fact the PID argument is processed by reiserfs_panic (don't know where), or * the PID argument is not used and should be removed, or This, please. reiserfs_panic calls BUG(), which will contain the PID. Whoo, thanks for the quick answer. I will send a patch as soon as possible. * the PID is useful and [%i] should be added somewhere in the format string. Which one would you prefer? Also, I found this when building the kernel with allmodconfig on x86_64. With defconfig gcc does not report this error, but I guess it is because without CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK, __RASSERT is never used. Yeah. If reiserfs was more actively maintained, what is currently protected by CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK would be handled a bit better. There are ton of fsfuzzer bugs that would be caught by it and should be handled using reiserfs_error. Unfortunately, it also enables some heavy checks that make the file system very slow. Thanks for looking into this. It looks like it's been broken for a while. I suppose the only saving grace is that it would crash in a path that crashes on purpose a few lines later. Yes, and this is also why I believe this bug is not a security issue nor something which needs an urgent fix. Thanks, Nicolas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: reiserfs: inconsistent format in __RASSERT
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 3/16/15 8:55 AM, Nicolas Iooss wrote: Hello, When adding a __printf attribute to reiserfs_panic, gcc reported an inconsistent format for __RASSERT. This macro is currently defined in fs/reiserfs/reiserfs.h as: reiserfs_panic(NULL, assertion failure, ( #cond ) at \ __FILE__ :%i:%s: format \n,\ in_interrupt() ? -1 : task_pid_nr(current), \ __LINE__, __func__ , ##args); In the format string, the first parameter is a line number, but in the arguments there is a PID before. Before c3a9c2109f84 (reiserfs: rework reiserfs_panic) [1], the format string began with reiserfs[%i] [2], which explains the PID in the arguments. I see three possibilities: * I missed something in my analysis and in fact the PID argument is processed by reiserfs_panic (don't know where), or * the PID argument is not used and should be removed, or This, please. reiserfs_panic calls BUG(), which will contain the PID. * the PID is useful and [%i] should be added somewhere in the format string. Which one would you prefer? Also, I found this when building the kernel with allmodconfig on x86_64. With defconfig gcc does not report this error, but I guess it is because without CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK, __RASSERT is never used. Yeah. If reiserfs was more actively maintained, what is currently protected by CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK would be handled a bit better. There are ton of fsfuzzer bugs that would be caught by it and should be handled using reiserfs_error. Unfortunately, it also enables some heavy checks that make the file system very slow. Thanks for looking into this. It looks like it's been broken for a while. I suppose the only saving grace is that it would crash in a path that crashes on purpose a few lines later. - -Jeff - -- Jeff Mahoney SUSE Labs -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJVBtUEAAoJEB57S2MheeWysH4P/RBggjHOwREYHiq2RaY8H+sf rSRaqf14xePP7vcWOvcQRkzjB2f6wnvD40i7j0vLqP5A6mjp+tdrSgl7P1KqGGBV 45oQuibM5LcrDA07cIgXYLVYZxiWCtOyDxjSfoNw4HsrP/gPIx5YevJseb/VZPON AH1ywT8LSmKx25jz20f6mmfbSuqtHe+ceitVcyjRnTw6363ngSPKj48rpPpo9uQE SJygrJy1kkEVw0P9EHSa03jSKggPIpEj40lV5L7BDKkEsqor+3jXZDHaM7qQq+N0 eYaYzIxBbWuf8jAHe/XDGDNo0TEjvFk6qgmdUKjn41j+mS4SbUZGk55QFJO32ecv GK9a/leQ/YyfPS9HBsuk6g51O1RU34nSyMY/i6o//VncgIJqIaxiWMb0KR5f79uL LWv/A4TDsFC0/o/O25FFFq2jte5i497aFzxpTI+KDRmzxBUM20QzkhwPz2tySace X0KBsJoLdgXLZhHYSlm2iydCb4C0lt6M3Q42IUlCeB3DQSViFgHnLry0ALULMcOk N061Pnv+BoM+yEScF5TEF+/S4QgtgqdxNsUzZTF/070rVgtbR0iimikkf2w2ejWM nYHsrFXJBZ55PtLKrV2ujVg3e25DlHK2irrawWmUF+/9zA/CV08u73XnB+VjAnTm 8Y0B/t6I90I3urltJbYA =Pcpd -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
reiserfs: inconsistent format in __RASSERT
Hello, When adding a __printf attribute to reiserfs_panic, gcc reported an inconsistent format for __RASSERT. This macro is currently defined in fs/reiserfs/reiserfs.h as: reiserfs_panic(NULL, assertion failure, ( #cond ) at \ __FILE__ :%i:%s: format \n,\ in_interrupt() ? -1 : task_pid_nr(current), \ __LINE__, __func__ , ##args); In the format string, the first parameter is a line number, but in the arguments there is a PID before. Before c3a9c2109f84 (reiserfs: rework reiserfs_panic) [1], the format string began with reiserfs[%i] [2], which explains the PID in the arguments. I see three possibilities: * I missed something in my analysis and in fact the PID argument is processed by reiserfs_panic (don't know where), or * the PID argument is not used and should be removed, or * the PID is useful and [%i] should be added somewhere in the format string. Which one would you prefer? Also, I found this when building the kernel with allmodconfig on x86_64. With defconfig gcc does not report this error, but I guess it is because without CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK, __RASSERT is never used. Regards, Nicolas [1] https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=c3a9c2109f84882b9b3178f6b1838d550d3df0ec [2] https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/linux/reiserfs_fs.h?id=78b6513d2881f1a759fb9825a036d926392de084#n91 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
