linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] usbip: Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in two 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 6 Dec 2017 10:10:29 +0100
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     shuah@...nel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>,
        Valentina Manea <valentina.manea.m@...il.com>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] usbip: Delete an error message for a failed memory
 allocation in two functions

>> Omit an extra message for a memory allocation failure in these functions.
>>
>> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
> 
> Please include the problem

Do you find the wording “WARNING: Possible unnecessary 'out of memory' message”
from the script “checkpatch.pl” more reasonable?

> and log from Coccinelle software

There is no log file from which I could extract something for this case.

> in any future patches for the issues detected by Coccinelle.

Would you like to help a bit to make the commit message better for your needs?

>> @@ -466,7 +465,6 @@ static void stub_recv_cmd_submit(struct stub_device *sdev,
>>  	priv->urb->setup_packet = kmemdup(&pdu->u.cmd_submit.setup, 8,
>>  					  GFP_KERNEL);
>>  	if (!priv->urb->setup_packet) {
>> -		dev_err(&udev->dev, "allocate setup_packet\n");
> 
> If Coccinelle found this as an extra message,
> there is something wrong with the Coccinelle script.

The source code analysis approach could be improved somehow.

> This is not an extra message.

There can be different opinions around the handling of such exceptional situations.

> This message is for the second kmemdup() failure and is necessary.

This function is called only once within the implementation of
the function “stub_recv_cmd_submit” (and in this source file).

Do you find a default Linux allocation failure report insufficient?

Regards,
Markus