[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 00:59:58 +0200
From: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, <jglisse@...hat.com>,
<keescook@...omium.org>, <mhocko@...nel.org>, <labbott@...hat.com>,
<hch@...radead.org>, <willy@...radead.org>
CC: <cl@...ux.com>, <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] genalloc: selftest
On 05/02/18 00:19, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 02/04/2018 08:47 AM, Igor Stoppa wrote:
[...]
> Please use kernel multi-line comment style.
ok for all of them
[...]
>> + BUG_ON(!locations[action->location]);
>> + print_first_chunk_bitmap(pool);
>> + BUG_ON(compare_bitmaps(pool, action->pattern));
>
> BUG_ON() seems harsh to me, but some of the other self-tests also do that.
I would expect that the test never fails, if one is not modifying
anything related to genalloc.
But if an error slips in during development of genalloc or anything
related (like the functions used to scan the bitmaps), I think it's
better to pull the handbrake immediately, because failure in tracking
correctly the memory allocation is likely to cause corruption and every
sort of mysterious weird errors.
--
igor
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
