linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/8] cgroup: deactivate CSS's and mark cgroup dead before invoking ->pre

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]

Message-ID: <20121031212725.GA2945@htj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:27:25 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc:	lizefan@...wei.com, hannes@...xchg.org, bsingharora@...il.com,
	kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] cgroup: deactivate CSS's and mark cgroup dead before
 invoking ->pre_destroy()

Hey, Michal.

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:23:59PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > +	for_each_subsys(cgrp->root, ss)
> > +		if (ss->pre_destroy)
> > +			WARN_ON_ONCE(ss->pre_destroy(cgrp));
> 
> Do you think that BUG_ON would be too harsh?

Yeah, I do think so.  In general, I think the consensus now is to
prefer WARN_ON[_ONCE]() over BUG_ON() whenever possible.  It's not
like we can get more information from BUG_ON()s (more likely to get
less reporting actually by taking down the machine).  Limping machines
are better than dead ones and there just isn't much to gain here by
killing it.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/