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 11:15:37 +0100
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, "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

>>> Many people do not know that a generic kmalloc does a
>>> dump_stack() on OOM.
>>
>> This is another interesting information, isn't it?
>>
>> It is expected that the function “devm_kzalloc” has got a similar property.
> 
> 
> You don't have to expect this.  Go look at the definition of devm_kzalloc
> and see whether it has the property or not.

I find that the corresponding documentation of these programming interfaces
is incomplete for a desired format which could be different than C source code.

https://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/v4.15-rc1/source/include/linux/device.h#L657
https://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/v4.15-rc1/source/drivers/base/devres.c#L763
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/driver-api/basics.html#c.devm_kmalloc

Can the Coccinelle software help more to determine desired function properties?


>> For which hardware and software combinations would you like to see
>> facts there?
> 
> This is not for Joe to decide,

This view is fine in principle.


> it's for the person who receives the patch to decide.

I am curious on further comments from these contributors.


> You could start with the ones for which the code actually compiles,
> using the standard make file and no special options, and a
> recent version of gcc.

The variation space could become too big to handle for me (alone).
How will this aspect evolve further?

Regards,
Markus