On 2018/05/10 8:53, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 10 May 2018 08:46:18 +0900 Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> page-allocation-fauilure warning and a nice backtrace, etc. Why
>>> suppress all of that and add our custom warning instead?
>>
>> the intent of this patch is to avoid panic() by panic_on_warn == 1
>> due to hitting
>>
>> struct kmem_cache *kmalloc_slab(size_t size, gfp_t flags)
>> {
>> unsigned int index;
>>
>> if (unlikely(size > KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE)) {
>> WARN_ON_ONCE(!(flags & __GFP_NOWARN)); /* <= this line */
>> return NULL;
>> }
>>
>> when size to allocate is controlled by the filesystem image.
>
> Well, the same could happen with many many memory-allocation sites.
> What's special about BFS? If someone sets panic_on_warn=1 then
> presumably this panic is the behaviour they wanted in this case.
>
Tigran, this patch is stalling. Do we want to apply this? Or, ignore as invalid?
errors=panic mount option for ext4 case was ignored as invalid.
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/CACT4Y+Z+2YW_VALJzzQr6hLsviA=dXk3iFqwVf+P5zqojeC9Zg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
But I prefer avoiding crashes if we can fix it.
