linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 2/3] cpufreq: Panic if policy is active in cpufreq_policy

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: <20220706152333.fvgybznz3j6ffmre@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Wed, 6 Jul 2022 20:53:33 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/3] cpufreq: Panic if policy is active in
 cpufreq_policy_free()

On 06-07-22, 15:49, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> WARN_ON() would be somewhat better, but then I'm not sure if having a
> full call trace in this case is really useful, because we know when
> cpufreq_policy_free() can be called anyway.
> 
> Maybe just print a warning message.

The warning will get printed, yes, but I am sure everyone will end up
ignoring it, once it happens.

One of the benefits of printing the call-stack is people will take it
seriously and report it, and we won't miss a bug, if one gets in
somehow.

-- 
viresh