Re: [PATCH] remove BUG() in possible but rare condition

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 04/11/2012 03:57 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Michal Hocko<mhocko@xxxxxxx>  wrote:

I am not familiar with the code much but a trivial call chain walk up to
write_dev_supers (in btrfs) shows that we do not check for the return value
from __getblk so we would nullptr and there might be more.
I guess these need some treat before the BUG might be removed, right?

Well, realistically, isn't BUG() as bad as a NULL pointer dereference?

Do you care about the exact message on the screen when your machine dies?
Not particular, but I don't see why (I might be wrong) it would necessarily lead to a NULL pointer dereference.

At least in my test cases, after turning this to a WARN (to make sure it was still being hit), the machine could go on just fine.

I was running this in a container system, with restricted memory. After
killing the container - at least in my ext4 system - everything seemed as happy as ever.

--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]