Re: [PATCH] x86: remove unneeded endless loop in BUG()

[Ingo Molnar]

* Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> Since __builtin_trap() will always generate an illegal 
> instruction, we can replace the explicit asm("ud2") with it.
> 
> This way gcc will understand that the function never returns, 
> plus it won't emit any extra instructions.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@xxxxxxx>

> +#define DO_BUG()						\
> +do {								\
> +	__builtin_trap();					\
> +	printk("BUG: failure at %s:%d/%s()!\n", __FILE__, __LINE__, __func__); \
> +	panic("BUG!");						\
> +} while(0)
> +
>  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> @@ -14,7 +21,7 @@
>  
>  #define BUG()							\
>  do {								\
> -	asm volatile("1:\tud2\n"				\
> +	asm volatile("1:\n"					\
>  		     ".pushsection __bug_table,\"a\"\n"		\
>  		     __BUG_C0					\
>  		     "\t.word %c1, 0\n"				\
> @@ -22,15 +29,11 @@ do {								\
>  		     ".popsection"				\
>  		     : : "i" (__FILE__), "i" (__LINE__),	\
>  		     "i" (sizeof(struct bug_entry)));		\
> -	for (;;) ;						\
> +	DO_BUG();					\

the problem is that the DO_BUG() will generate the u2d 
instruction into a random place where GCC puts it. It certainly 
wont be in the place where the __bug_table logic above expects 
it.

The result will be cryptic crashes instead of a clean BUG 
message assert.

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/