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:   Wed, 6 Dec 2017 17:02:40 -0500 (EST)
From:   Alan Stern <>
To:     SF Markus Elfring <>
cc:, Joe Perches <>,
        Daniel Drake <>,
        Dmitry Fleytman <>,
        Eugene Korenevsky <>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
        Günter Röck <>,
        Johan Hovold <>,
        Mathias Nyman <>,
        Peter Chen <>,
        LKML <>,
Subject: Re: USB: hub: Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation
 in usb_hub_clear_tt_buffer()

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

> >>> Does the existing memory allocation error message include the 
> >>> &udev->dev device name and driver name?  If it doesn't, there will be 
> >>> no way for the user to tell that the error message is related to the 
> >>> device failure.
> >>
> >> No, but the effect is similar.
> >>
> >> OOM does a dump_stack() so this function's call tree is shown.
> > 
> > A call stack doesn't tell you which device was being handled.
> Do you find a default Linux allocation failure report insufficient then?
> Would you like to to achieve that the requested information can be determined
> from a backtrace?

It is not practical to do this.  The memory allocation routines do not 
for what purpose the memory is being allocated; hence when a failure 
occurs they cannot tell what device (or other part of the system) will 
be affected.

That's why we have a secondary error message.

Alan Stern

Powered by blists - more mailing lists