linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 2/4] mm/vmalloc: revert "mm/vmalloc.c: emit the failure message before return"

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <523766E1.1020303@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:15:29 -0400
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	liwanp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
	rientjes@...gle.com, kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
	zhangyanfei@...fujitsu.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 2/4] mm/vmalloc: revert "mm/vmalloc.c: emit
 the failure message before return"

On 9/14/2013 7:45 PM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> Changelog:
>  *v2 -> v3: revert commit 46c001a2 directly
> 
> Don't warning twice in __vmalloc_area_node and __vmalloc_node_range if
> __vmalloc_area_node allocation failure. This patch revert commit 46c001a2
> (mm/vmalloc.c: emit the failure message before return).
> 
> Reviewed-by: Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei@...fujitsu.com>
> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <liwanp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>  mm/vmalloc.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> index d78d117..e3ec8b4 100644
> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -1635,7 +1635,7 @@ void *__vmalloc_node_range(unsigned long size, unsigned long align,
>  
>  	addr = __vmalloc_area_node(area, gfp_mask, prot, node, caller);
>  	if (!addr)
> -		goto fail;
> +		return NULL;

This is not right fix. Now we have following call stack.

 __vmalloc_node
	__vmalloc_node_range
		__vmalloc_node

Even if we remove a warning of __vmalloc_node_range, we still be able to see double warning
because we call __vmalloc_node recursively.

I haven't catch your point why twice warning is unacceptable though.









--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/