linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpu/hotplug: handle unbalanced hotplug enable/disable

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: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1604251018090.3941@nanos>
Date:	Mon, 25 Apr 2016 10:22:59 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Lianwei Wang <lianwei.wang@...il.com>
cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, oleg@...hat.com,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpu/hotplug: handle unbalanced hotplug enable/disable

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Lianwei Wang wrote:
> Any way is Ok for debugging purpose. But think the kernel run on a
> customer machine, such as PC, Mobile phone or other devices. How we
> let the customer debug it but not recover it smartly?

There is nothing smart here. Restoring the count is a bandaid and has nothing
to do with recovery. If that WARN_ON triggers then other stuff is going to be
more fundamentally wrong so restoring the count is the least of our worries.

> Anyway, from a product perspective way, if we don't want to restore
> the unbalanced counter to 0, then maybe a BUG_ON is more reasonable
> than WARN_ON.

Not at all. BUG_ON is the last resort if we have no other way to handle an
issue.

Thanks,

	tglx