[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20249e10-4a13-8084-bcf2-0f98497a755f@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 20:00:26 +0200
From: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>
To: J Freyensee <why2jjj.linux@...il.com>, <david@...morbit.com>,
<willy@...radead.org>, <keescook@...omium.org>, <mhocko@...nel.org>
CC: <labbott@...hat.com>, <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] genalloc: selftest
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. Based upon those articles, 'yes'. 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
