On 23.10.2023 10:28, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 10:04:21AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 20.10.2023 22:26, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> However, upping to a BUG() can't provide any helpful message out to the >>> user. >>> >>> I tried modifying BUG() to take an optional message, but xen/bug.h needs >>> untangling substantially before that will work, and I don't have time right >>> now. >> >> I agree with Julien's suggestion of using panic() in the meantime, as a >> possible alternative. > > We might care about the stack trace, so would be helpful to print it, > maybe WARN + panic?
Perhaps, yes. >> Question though is whether it's better to halt the >> system right away, as opposed to e.g. permitting orderly shutdown to cover >> the case where the corruption ends up not being "deadly". > > Hm, won't this be risky, as we could then possibly corrupt data on disk > for example? It is risky - you never really know which of the two options is better. Jan
