linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Replace if statement with WARN_ON_ONCE() in cmci

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:	Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:17:31 +0800
From:	Miao Xie <miaox@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>, tony.luck@...el.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
	laijs@...fujitsu.com, wency@...fujitsu.com, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Replace if statement with WARN_ON_ONCE() in cmci_rediscover().

On tue, 23 Oct 2012 11:52:34 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:55:13AM +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
>> So, how about warn once, and continue:
>> 	if (cpu == dying) {
>> 		WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu == dying);
>> 		continue;
>> 	}
>>
>> or, use BUG_ON() instead ?
> 
> Let me ask you again, but I want you to think real hard this time:
> 
> "Why do we need to warn? What good would that bring us?"
> 

This function is called after a cpu is offline, in other words, it is
impossible that the cpu is still in cpu_online_mask. otherwise there is
something wrong in the code.

Thanks
Miao
--
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/