linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] Stop tracing on a schedule bug

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 16 Apr 2010 01:10:54 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Chase Douglas <chase.douglas@...onical.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Stop tracing on a schedule bug

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 01:01:50AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > I tend to think of the TRACE_EVENT_* as an indication of severity and
> > whether we want to stop the trace by default. From a distro
> > standpoint, the likelihood that we want to continue tracing after a
> > __schedule_bug is pretty low. It's easiest if we don't have to tell
> 
> Well, scheduling while atomic is a BUG, but one of the category which
> allows the kernel to continue. So in fact it's treated like a WARN_ON.
> So the tracing_off_event() qualifier should be *_WARN.
> 
> That's independent of the question whether you want to stop tracing in
> that very case


Exactly.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/