linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] topology: Check for missing CPU devices

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFzz3FUsKRQ33NiDghkA3ugV65sBrc+N-h8NLuDRUSBAHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 9 Jan 2012 12:23:04 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thorsten Glaser <tg@...bsd.de>,
	Debian kernel team <debian-kernel@...ts.debian.org>,
	linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org, debian-68k@...ts.debian.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] topology: Check for missing CPU devices

On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk> wrote:
>
> I mean to say that we could have no CPU devices after the *second*
> patch.  So the first patch is an extra defence against that.  (Though we
> could just as well panic if register_cpu() fails at boot time.)

I think I'd rather just panic - if you have allocation issues during
early boot, the machine is hosed anyway - and then get rid of the
first patch?

Willing to send out a new patch along those lines (and with UML added)?

Thanks,
                  Linus
--
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/