From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f69.google.com (mail-wm0-f69.google.com [74.125.82.69]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CC886B000C for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 13:01:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm0-f69.google.com with SMTP id p4so6461726wmc.8 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 10:01:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com. [194.213.3.17]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k129si5758682wme.177.2018.02.26.10.00.59 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 26 Feb 2018 10:00:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] genalloc: selftest References: <20180223144807.1180-1-igor.stoppa@huawei.com> <20180223144807.1180-3-igor.stoppa@huawei.com> <76b3d858-b14e-b66d-d8ae-dbd0b307308a@gmail.com> <45087800-218a-7ff5-22c0-d0a5bfea5001@gmail.com> From: Igor Stoppa Message-ID: <20249e10-4a13-8084-bcf2-0f98497a755f@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 20:00:26 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <45087800-218a-7ff5-22c0-d0a5bfea5001@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: J Freyensee , david@fromorbit.com, willy@infradead.org, keescook@chromium.org, mhocko@kernel.org Cc: labbott@redhat.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com On 26/02/18 19:46, J Freyensee wrote: > > > On 2/26/18 4:11 AM, Igor Stoppa wrote: >> >> On 24/02/18 00:42, J Freyensee wrote: >>>> + locations[action->location] = gen_pool_alloc(pool, action->size); >>>> + BUG_ON(!locations[action->location]); >>> Again, I'd think it through if you really want to use BUG_ON() or not: >>> >>> https://lwn.net/Articles/13183/ >>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/4/1 >> Is it acceptable to display only a WARNing, in case of risking damaging >> a mounted filesystem? > > That's a good question.A Based upon those articles, 'yes'.A But it seems > like a 'darned-if-you-do, darned-if-you-don't' question as couldn't you > also corrupt a mounted filesystem by crashing the kernel, yes/no? The idea is to do it very early in the boot phase, before early init, when the kernel has not gotten even close to any storage device. > If you really want a system crash, maybe just do a panic() like > filesystems also use? ok, if that's a more acceptable way to halt the kernel, I do not mind. -- igor -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org