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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 09:51:29 -0600 From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> Cc: Abdul Haleem <abdhalee@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>, linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, chandan <chandan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [linux-next][XFS][trinity] WARNING: CPU: 32 PID: 31369 at fs/iomap.c:993 On 09/18/2017 09:43 AM, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 05:39:47PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 09:28:55AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> If it's expected, why don't we kill the WARN_ON_ONCE()? I get it all >>> the time running xfstests as well. >> >> Dave insisted on it to decourage users/applications from mixing >> mmap and direct I/O. >> >> In many ways a tracepoint might be the better way to diagnose these. > > sysctl suppressing those two, perhaps? I'd rather just make it a trace point, but don't care too much. The code doesn't even have a comment as to why that WARN_ON() is there or expected. Seems pretty sloppy to me, not a great way to "discourage" users to mix mmap/dio. -- Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists