linux-kernel - Re: ethernet: mlx4: Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in five 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:   Wed, 3 Jan 2018 15:22:03 +0100
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ethernet: mlx4: Delete an error message for a failed memory
 allocation in five functions

> I don't really accept this claim...
> Short informative strings worth the tiny space they consume.

There can be different opinions for their usefulness.


> In addition, some out-of-memory errors are recoverable, even though their backtrace is also printed.

How do you think about to suppress the backtrace generation for them?


> For example, in function mlx4_en_create_cq (appears in patch) we have a first allocation attempt (kzalloc_node)

Would it be helpful to pass the option “__GFP_NOWARN” there?


> and a fallback (kzalloc). I'd prefer to state a clear error message only when both have failed,
> because otherwise the user might be confused whether the backtrace should indicate a malfunctioning interface, or not.

Can the distinction become easier by any other means?

Regards,
Markus