linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] vhost/scsi: Delete error messages for failed memory allocations in five functions

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <557bdff4-6dc2-756d-0d59-9f688ef11f0a@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Mon, 22 May 2017 12:50:39 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...il.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] vhost/scsi: Delete error messages for failed memory
 allocations in five functions

>> Link: http://events.linuxfoundation.org/sites/events/files/slides/LCJ16-Refactor_Strings-WSang_0.pdf
> 
> Please include an actual explanation for this change instead of linking
> to slides.

Do you care for a bit of code size reduction by removal of questionable
error messages?


> Why are you trying to get rid of memory allocation failure messages?

Do you find information from a Linux allocation failure report sufficient
for any function implementations here?


>> +++ b/drivers/vhost/scsi.c
>> @@ -417,5 +417,4 @@ vhost_scsi_allocate_evt(struct vhost_scsi *vs,
>>  	if (!evt) {
>> -		vq_err(vq, "Failed to allocate vhost_scsi_evt\n");
> 
> #define vq_err(vq, fmt, ...) do {                                  \
>                 pr_debug(pr_fmt(fmt), ##__VA_ARGS__);       \
>                 if ((vq)->error_ctx)                               \
>                                 eventfd_signal((vq)->error_ctx, 1);\
>         } while (0)
> 
> You silently dropped the eventfd_signal() call.

Do you prefer to preserve this special error handling then?

Regards,
Markus