Re: [PATCH] x86/debug: define BUG() againfor !CONFIG_BUG

[Ingo Molnar]

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 09:17:07AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:16:31PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > The latest change to the BUG() macro inadvertently reverted the earlier
> > > > commit b06dd879f5db ("x86: always define BUG() and HAVE_ARCH_BUG, even
> > > > with !CONFIG_BUG") that sanitized the behavior with CONFIG_BUG=n.
> > > > 
> > > > I noticed this as some warnings have appeared again that were previously
> > > > fixed as a side effect of that patch:
> > > > 
> > > > kernel/seccomp.c: In function '__seccomp_filter':
> > > > kernel/seccomp.c:670:1: error: no return statement in function returning non-void [-Werror=return-type]
> > > > 
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c: In function 'intel_check_sprite_plane':
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c:936:20: error: 'src_h' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
> > > >    src->y2 = (src_y + src_h) << 16;
> > > >              ~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c:934:20: error: 'src_w' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
> > > >    src->x2 = (src_x + src_w) << 16;
> > > >              ~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c:936:20: error: 'src_y' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
> > > >    src->y2 = (src_y + src_h) << 16;
> > > >              ~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c:934:20: error: 'src_x' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
> > > >    src->x2 = (src_x + src_w) << 16;
> > > >              ~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~
> > > > 
> > > > This combines the two patches and uses the ud2 macro to define BUG()
> > > > in case of CONFIG_BUG=n.
> > > 
> > > OK, fair enough I suppose. However, I cribbed this from arm64. What does
> > > that do for BUG=n ?
> > 
> > I think we'll get a U2D crash in this case, without any bug information.
> > 
> > I.e. only marginally debuggable, but it's a deterministic outcome - instead of the 
> > crazy GCC code generation variant of the day when the warning triggers, or the 
> > similarly crazy infinite loop hang.
> > 
> > I'm not entirely sure though, I don't think many people actually _use_ 
> > CONFIG_BUG=n, it's essentially a crazy thing to do even on constrainted hardware. 
> > Debugging and maintenance costs almost always trump marginal hardware costs of a 
> > bit more debugging code.
> 
> So should we then, for x86, disable BUG=n instead?

Arnd, does CONFIG_BUG=n give any (marginal) text savings wrt. 
CONFIG_BUG=y && CONFIG_BUG_VERBOSE=n?

If not then we should indeed just disable CONFIG_BUG=n.

Thanks,

	Ingo