linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH resend] mm/page_alloc: fix comment is __get_free

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:   Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:57:35 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     JianKang Chen <chenjiankang1@...wei.com>,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net, hannes@...xchg.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        xieyisheng1@...wei.com, guohanjun@...wei.com,
        wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] mm/page_alloc: fix comment is __get_free_pages

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:36:18 +0100 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:

> > > 
> > > So do we care and I will resend the patch in that case or I just drop
> > > this from my patch queue?
> > 
> > Well..  I still think that silently accepting bad input would be bad
> > practice.  If we can just delete the assertion and have such a caller
> > reliably blow up later on then that's good enough.
> 
> The point is that if the caller checks for the failed allocation then
> the result is a memory leak.

That's if page_address(highmem page) returns NULL.  I'm not sure what
it returns, really - so many different implementations across so many
different architectures.

Oh well, it would have been nice to remove that VM_BUG_ON().  Why not
just leave the code as it is now?