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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:58:32 +0100
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
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()

On Wed 31-10-12 14:27:25, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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.

Fair enough

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/