linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] vmscan: add task name to warn_scan

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:	Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:41:11 +0900
From:	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vmscan: add task name to warn_scan_unevictable() messages

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:32:45PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011, Minchan Kim wrote:
> 
> > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > index a1893c0..29d163e 100644
> > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > @@ -3448,9 +3448,10 @@ void scan_mapping_unevictable_pages(struct address_space *mapping)
> > >  static void warn_scan_unevictable_pages(void)
> > >  {
> > >  	printk_once(KERN_WARNING
> > > -		    "The scan_unevictable_pages sysctl/node-interface has been "
> > > +		    "%s: The scan_unevictable_pages sysctl/node-interface has been "
> > >  		    "disabled for lack of a legitimate use case.  If you have "
> > > -		    "one, please send an email to linux-mm@...ck.org.\n");
> > > +		    "one, please send an email to linux-mm@...ck.org.\n",
> > > +		    current->comm);
> > >  }
> > 
> > Just nitpick:
> > How about using WARN_ONCE instead of custom warning?
> > It can show more exact call path as well as comm.
> > I guess it's more noticible to users.
> > Anyway, either is okay to me.
> > 
> 
> When I used WARN_ONCE() to notify users that /proc/pid/oom_adj was 
> deprecated, people complained that it triggered userspace log parsers 
> thinking that there's a serious problem and it adds a taint flag so it got 
> reverted.  I'd recommend keeping it printk_once().

printk_once is better in case of not serious WARNING
once I listen your opinion.

Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>

-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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/