linux-kernel - Re: omapfb/dss: Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in three 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]

Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2017 09:49:45 +0100
From:   Ladislav Michl <ladis@...ux-mips.org>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
        linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, "Andrew F. Davis" <afd@...com>,
        Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@...il.com>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
        Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: omapfb/dss: Delete an error message for a failed memory
 allocation in three functions

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 12:04:04AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-11-28 at 08:41 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > > It seems that I got no responses so far for clarification requests
> > > > according to the documentation in a direction I hoped for.
> > > 
> > > That's because you are pretty unresponsive to direction.
> > 
> > From which places did you get this impression?
> 
> How many times have I told you to include the reason for
> your patches in
> your proposed commit message?  Too often.
> 
> For instance, specific to this patch:
> 
> Many people do not know that a generic kmalloc does a
> dump_stack() on OOM.  That information should be part
> of the commit message.
> 
> Also removing the printk code reduces overall code size.
> The actual size reduction should be described in the
> commit message too.

Could we, please, return one step back and reevaluate need for
kmalloc. That would eliminate original "problem" as well.

	ladis