Philippe Gerum wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Well, this is practically your original version. I still don't see why
>> we want debug code in production setups (WARN_ON, e.g., doesn't work
>> this way either),
> Do you actually leave CONFIG_IPIPE_DEBUG on in production setups?

Not /me, but your patch drags in the the full warning message even
without CONFIG_IPIPE_DEBUG - if I virtually apply the patch correctly.

>> and I still don't understand why you want to report
>> user faults as kernel bugs.
> This is a red herring: we are currently in a situation where such
> messages would be actual kernel issues because some APIs are sloppy wrt
> kernel/user copies, this is the point.
>> If you want to spot skin issues, just grep for __xn_copy_to/from_user or
>> __xn_strncpy_from_user and check for missing return code evaluations.
>> Really, that's nothing we need runtime checks in I-pipe for.
> It's a _debug_ tool until everything is fixed, because we have loads of
> APIs to fix for untested copy_from/to_user, and anything out-of-tree
> code may have used the same way. It's merely a conditional and passive
> check, far away from the hot path, which is there "just in case". The
> same way you may run with the domain context checker enabled although
> you may be reasonably confident that having some context mismatch still
> hiding in the Xenomai core is currently unlikely -- but you know nothing
> about what may be going on out-of-tree.
> This feature is mainly aimed at API writers, not users. Additionally,

If you want to support API writer: Let us tag __xn_copy* with
__must_check - _that_ would be the right tool for pointing out remaining
issues, not some runtime warning that a) only triggers if the user
stumbled over it and b) causes false positives for those skin which
already behave nicely.

> not everyone is going to switch to 2.4 with the ironed kernel/user copy
> code overnight, so we want this code in 2.6.20/x86 too, so that at
> least, we may tell people to upgrade their I-pipe patch if need be, then
> switch CONFIG_IPIPE_DEBUG on to trap those trivial issues, including
> over past 2.3.x releases. At least, we could tell them how and where to
> fix their code.
> At worst, the message will never trigger because all bugous spots will
> have been addressed within the skins during the next stable releases:
> fine. Otherwise, we will have more information to chase such kind of bugs.

Nope, it will trigger also after the skins are converted. This is what
makes it inappropriate IMHO.


Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux

Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to