[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080329105112.GC359@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:51:12 +0300
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Laurent Riffard <laurent.riffard@...e.fr>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] don't panic if /sbin/init exits or killed
On 03/28, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >If the buggy init exits, the kernel panics. I see no point for this. It is
> >very
> >possible that the system is still usable enough, at least to read the logs
> >and
> >prepare the bug report.
> >
> >Change exit_child_reaper() to do BUG() instead of panic().
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
>
> This would be highly undesirable in a production system, since it would
> leave the machine an unusable zombie. In a production system, the panic
> can be made to reboot the system, bringing it back online.
I can't agree. Following this logic, we should always use panic() instead
of BUG().
I think the system should try to use any chance to survive, and we have
panic_on_oops.
That said, Stephen has a good reason to nack this patch. But still I hope
it is possible to find a simple solution. Not that I think this is really
important, but this panic() is silly, imho.
Oleg.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists