xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfsprogs: use abort() not ASSERT(0) for impossible switch ca

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfsprogs: use abort() not ASSERT(0) for impossible switch case
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 12:45:33 -0500
Cc: xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20140821174414.GA28860@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <53F62D12.8010505@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20140821174414.GA28860@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 8/21/14, 12:44 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 12:32:02PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> The original reason for the expletive below has been lost
>> in the mists of time, but at any rate, ASSERT() goes away in
>> libxfs, and this leads static analysis checkers to believe that
>> XFS_BTNUM_MAX is possible, and that we might overflow an array
>> later when using it as an index.
>>
>> We can shut this up and mark it as truly impossible with abort().
> 
> This won't work in kernel space, and we'd like to keep this file in sync.

Ah, right, sorry - spaced out that it was shared.

I'll add ASSERT_ALWAYS() to userspace then, perhaps.

Thanks,
-Eric

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>