lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RESEND net-next] tcp: socket-specific version of WARN_ON_ONCE()
On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 09:16:16PM +0000, Iwashima, Kuniyuki wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 2022, at 21:48, Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 10:00:55AM +0900, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:

<snip>

> >>> +void tcp_sock_warn(const struct tcp_sock *tp)
> >>> +{
> >>> + const struct sock *sk = (const struct sock *)tp;
> >>> + struct inet_sock *inet = inet_sk(sk);
> >>> + struct inet_connection_sock *icsk = inet_csk(sk);
> >>> +
> >>> + WARN_ON(1);
> >>> +
> >>> + if (!tp)
> >>
> >> Is this needed ?
> >
> > We are de-referencing tp/sk in the lines below, so, I think it is safe to
> > check if they are not NULL before the de-refencing it.
>
> tp->snd_cwnd is accessed just after this WARN,
> so I thought there were no cases where tp is NULL.

Oh, important to say that we want to re-use this macro on other places
as well. This initial usage (on tcp_snd_cwnd_set()) is just for the
initial patch. I see value replacing some WARN_ON_*() by
TCP_SOCK_WARN_ON_ONCE() in other parts of the code, so, this check is to
protect this warning when TCP_SOCK_WARN_ON_ONCE() is called from
different places.

Anyway, I definitely can remove the check here, but, we might want to
re-add it later, as we replace some WARN_ON_* by TCP_SOCK_WARN_ON_*();

> I think this additional if could confuse future readers and
> want to make sure if there is such a case.

How come checking if a pointer is valid before de-refencing it could
confuse readers?

Thank you for the review!

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-11-30 14:19    [W:0.058 / U:0.152 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site