linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V3 2/8] xen: Delay remapping memory of pv-domain

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: <5465E483.7080802@citrix.com>
Date:	Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:16:19 +0000
From:	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
To:	Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
CC:	<xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>, <x86@...nel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <mingo@...hat.com>,
	<david.vrabel@...rix.com>, <hpa@...or.com>,
	<boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>, <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V3 2/8] xen: Delay remapping memory of pv-domain

On 14/11/14 04:53, Juergen Gross wrote:
> 
> Using BUG() instead would make the code less complex. Do you really
> think xen_update_mem_tables() would ever fail in a sane system?
> 
> - set_phys_to_machine() would fail only on a memory shortage. Just
>   going on without adding more memory wouldn't lead to a healthy system,
>   I think.
> - The hypervisor calls would fail only in case of parameter errors.
>   This should never happen, so dying seems to be the correct reaction.
> 
> David, what do you think?

BUG() sounds fine.

David
--
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/