Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From:   Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: add panic_on_taint
Date:   Thu, 7 May 2020 19:07:20 -0400
Message-Id: <6B423101-ACF4-49A3-AD53-ACBF87F1ABE0@lca.pw>
References: <20200507221503.GL205881@optiplex-lnx>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        dyoung@redhat.com, Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200507221503.GL205881@optiplex-lnx>
To:     Rafael Aquini <aquini@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


> On May 7, 2020, at 6:15 PM, Rafael Aquini <aquini@redhat.com> wrote:
>=20
> It's a reasonable and self-contained feature that we have a valid use for.=
=20
> I honestly fail to see it causing that amount of annoyance as you are=20
> suggesting here.

It is not a big trouble yet, but keeping an obsolete patch that not very str=
aightforward to figure out that it will be superseded by the panic_on_taint p=
atch will only cause more confusion the longer it has stayed in linux-next.

The thing is that even if you can=E2=80=99t get this panic_on_taint (the sup=
erior solution) patch accepted for some reasons, someone else could still wo=
rk on it until it get merged.

Thus, I failed to see any possibility we will go back to the inferior soluti=
on (mm-slub-add-panic_on_error-to-the-debug-facilities.patch) by all means.=