[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F85D53B.1070806@parallels.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:02:19 -0300
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<devel@...nvz.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, "Johannes Weiner" <hannes@...xchg.org>,
<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove BUG() in possible but rare condition
On 04/11/2012 03:57 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Michal Hocko<mhocko@...e.cz> wrote:
>>
>> I am not familiar with the code much but a trivial call chain walk up to
>> write_dev_supers (in btrfs) shows that we do not check for the return value
>> from __getblk so we would nullptr and there might be more.
>> I guess these need some treat before the BUG might be removed, right?
>
> Well, realistically, isn't BUG() as bad as a NULL pointer dereference?
>
> Do you care about the exact message on the screen when your machine dies?
Not particular, but I don't see why (I might be wrong) it would
necessarily lead to a NULL pointer dereference.
At least in my test cases, after turning this to a WARN (to make sure it
was still being hit), the machine could go on just fine.
I was running this in a container system, with restricted memory. After
killing the container - at least in my ext4 system - everything seemed
as happy as ever.
--
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