[PATCH RFC 1/2] coding-style.rst: document BUG() and WARN() rules ("do not crash the kernel")

[David Hildenbrand]

On 24.08.22 23:59, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 8/24/22 09:30, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
>> index 03eb53fd029a..a6d81ff578fe 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
>> @@ -1186,6 +1186,33 @@ expression used.  For instance:
>>  	#endif /* CONFIG_SOMETHING */
>>  
> 
> I like the idea of adding this documentation, and this is the right
> place. Naturally, if one likes something, one must immediately change
> it. :) Therefore, here is an alternative writeup that I think captures
> what you and the email threads were saying.
> 
> How's this sound?

Much better, thanks! :)

> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> index 03eb53fd029a..32df0d503388 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> @@ -1185,6 +1185,53 @@ expression used.  For instance:
>         ...
>         #endif /* CONFIG_SOMETHING */
>  
> +22) Do not crash the kernel
> +---------------------------
> +
> +Use WARN() rather than BUG()
> +****************************
> +
> +Do not add new code that uses any of the BUG() variants, such as BUG(),
> +BUG_ON(), or VM_BUG_ON(). Instead, use a WARN*() variant, preferably
> +WARN_ON_ONCE(), and possibly with recovery code. Recovery code is not required
> +if there is no reasonable way to at least partially recover.

I'll tend to keep in this section:

"Unavoidable data corruption / security issues might be a very rare
exception to this rule and need good justification."

Because there are rare exceptions, and I'd much rather document the
clear exception to this rule.

> +
> +Use WARN_ON_ONCE() rather than WARN() or WARN_ON()
> +**************************************************
> +
> +WARN_ON_ONCE() is generally preferred over WARN() or WARN_ON(), because it is
> +common for a given warning condition, if it occurs at all, to occur multiple
> +times. (For example, once per file, or once per struct page.) This can fill up

I'll drop the "For example" part. I feel like this doesn't really need
an example -- most probably we've all been there already when the kernel
log was flooded :)

> +and wrap the kernel log, and can even slow the system enough that the excessive
> +logging turns into its own, additional problem.
> +
> +Do not WARN lightly
> +*******************
> +
> +WARN*() is intended for unexpected, this-should-never-happen situations. WARN*()
> +macros are not to be used for anything that is expected to happen during normal
> +operation. These are not pre- or post-condition asserts, for example. Again:
> +WARN*() must not be used for a condition that is expected to trigger easily, for
> +example, by user space actions. pr_warn_once() is a possible alternative, if you
> +need to notify the user of a problem.
> +
> +Do not worry about panic_on_warn users
> +**************************************
> +
> +A few more words about panic_on_warn: Remember that ``panic_on_warn`` is an
> +available kernel option, and that many users set this option. This is why there
> +is a "Do not WARN lightly" writeup, above. However, the existence of
> +panic_on_warn users is not a valid reason to avoid the judicious use WARN*().
> +That is because, whoever enables panic_on_warn has explicitly asked the kernel
> +to crash if a WARN*() fires, and such users must be prepared to deal with the
> +consequences of a system that is somewhat more likely to crash.

Side note: especially with kdump() I feel like we might see much more
widespread use of panic_on_warn to be able to actually extract debug
information in a controlled manner -- for example on enterprise distros.
... which would then make these systems more likely to crash, because
there is no way to distinguish a rather harmless warning from a severe
warning :/ . But let's see if some kdump() folks will share their
opinion as reply to the cover letter.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb