Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755899Ab0GaTIJ (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Jul 2010 15:08:09 -0400 Received: from mail-ey0-f174.google.com ([209.85.215.174]:49166 "EHLO mail-ey0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754944Ab0GaTIH (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Jul 2010 15:08:07 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=v8sW0EKN8Fu56r09FJOrwHUTRwq9zOMNGaIQrZ9/cx/KK7d4XPPmcUluDLetltdlSU /YBS1xWX+Optv9t7fKIQjR/DPhUCncKv6glFAGlP1SjVTAmEGndMNeIF88xQK6Hv5zHy Nfn29WbCGKZ/OQKZ5JcBDszfzu2gFrGozTdls= Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 23:07:21 +0400 From: Vasiliy Kulikov To: walter harms Cc: Andi Kleen , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, Hidetoshi Seto , Borislav Petkov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] x86: mce: fix error handling Message-ID: <20100731190721.GA16357@albatros> References: <1280335185-23265-1-git-send-email-segooon@gmail.com> <4C5063D4.4070108@linux.intel.com> <20100728171327.GA24149@albatros> <4C5066CB.7010009@linux.intel.com> <20100729093511.GB7143@albatros> <4C514F04.80603@linux.intel.com> <4C51538C.1090803@bfs.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C51538C.1090803@bfs.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1902 Lines: 49 On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:10 +0200, walter harms wrote: > > > Andi Kleen schrieb: > > > >> IMO memmory allocation fails are dangerous in kernel mode. As it is > >> probably not exploitable because of boot time, it can destroy some > >> sensitive data like dirty disk caches those are going to be written on > >> disk. > > > > It's true for runtime, but not for normal boot time. > > > > Anyways if it happens on boot time the only thing you can do is panic, > > but someone else > > will likely panic anyways for you. Just ignoring it like your patch > > effectively does > > (because nothing will ever look at the ENOMEMs for an initcall) is wrong > > though > > In this case it's actually better to oops like the original code does. > > > > BTW even with your patch likely later code will crash anyways because it > > doesn't > > expect init code to fail. > > > > NTL it is nice to have a error message. for users it is worse if you crash suddenly > with out warning than having a crash with "OOM" before because it gives you a clue > what is going on. > short: > please think of users that are not kernel developers give them a hint what went wrong. > > to make thinks more easy on boot we could replace kalloc() with kmalloc_or_die(). The thing is that this driver does not call kmalloc() explicitly, it uses function those call functions those call kmalloc() :) If we call BUG_ON() in init code, it would not make big overhead and would make fault exactly when bug was detected, independent from caller checks. Andi, are you fine with it? > When anyone runs out of mem on boottime you can panic() instantly. > > just my to cents, > wh > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/