Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 16 Jul 2008 02:36:44 +0400 | From | Alexey Dobriyan <> | Subject | Re: BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 000000000000000e (reset_prng_context) |
| |
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 03:11:10PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 01:49:30 +0400 > Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 01:44:07PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > > > From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> > > > > > > > i have just triggered this crash too. Please, when you know about bootup > > > > crashes in your code send a patch to the lkml thread so that people can > > > > apply it and have a working system. > > > > > > > > Note that the new crypto/prng.c driver has very bad quality: > > > > > > > > total: 45 errors, 21 warnings, 1 checks, 410 lines checked > > > > > > > > It has tons of completely unacceptable code mistakes in it. > > > > > > I think we should merge new drivers as aggressively as possible. > > > > Well, I don't have strong opinion about this exact statement, but > > > > Ingo, COULD YOU PLEASE PERSONALLY FUCKING STOP THIS > > CHECKPATCH.PL-AS-INDICATOR HORSESHIT ! > > Well I wouldn't put it that way but sure, there is no clear correlation. > > Except that such a high density of coding-style errors is an indication > that the code was not closely and critically reviewed by an experienced > kernel developer.
So it's all about entrance? Looking at archives, I wouldn't say so.
> > Every damn single warning in this case is about whitespace or 80 column limit. > > > > Every damn single one! > > > > The hacker of your calibre should know the difference between whitespace-bad code > > and bug-ridden-bad code. > > > > > > What are those unacceptable mistakes? > > > > Don't read the code again, what are those mistakes? > > > > Sleeping inside spinlock?
Haven't found that place, but checkpatch.pl neither.
> > I _very_ briefly looked at prng.c and place I find wrong it passing > > "int nbytes" to get_prng_bytes(). It should be unsigned at least. > > > > checkpatch.pl says about this? Suuuure, it does... > > If we're going to merge code which has zillions of trivially-detectable > coding-style errors and which hasn't been runtime tested with very > mainstream kernel debug options enabled and which afacit hasn't been > reviewed then we have no standards at all.
No excuse for no runtime testing. No arguments about it.
But stamping code bad because it writes all loops as "for (i=0;i<N;i++)" is unexplainble when person making such statements can rewrite OS scheduler every weekend.
| |