On Mon 16-01-17 11:48:51, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:37:02AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:28:40AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:16:43AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > > From: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > We wanna know who's doing such a thing. Like slab.c does that.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > mm/slub.c | 1 +
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> > > > index 067598a00849..1b0fa7625d6d 100644
> > > > --- a/mm/slub.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > > > @@ -1623,6 +1623,7 @@ static struct page *new_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags, int node)
> > > > flags &= ~GFP_SLAB_BUG_MASK;
> > > > pr_warn("Unexpected gfp: %#x (%pGg). Fixing up to gfp: %#x (%pGg). Fix your code!\n",
> > > > invalid_mask, &invalid_mask, flags, &flags);
> > > > + dump_stack();
> > >
> > > Will it make sense to change these two lines above to WARN(true, .....)?
> >
> > Should be equivalent.
>
> Almost, except one point - pr_warn and dump_stack have different log
> levels. There is a chance that user won't see pr_warn message above, but
> dump_stack will be always present.
>
> For WARN_XXX, users will always see message and stack at the same time.
On the other hand WARN* will taint the kernel and this sounds a bit
overreacting for something like a wrong gfp mask which is perfectly
recoverable. Not to mention users who care configured to panic on
warning.
So while I do not have a strong opinion on this I would rather stay with
the dump_stack.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>