linux-kernel - Re: [1/3] mfd/omap-usb-tll: Delete two error messages for a failed memory allocation in usbtll_omap

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:   Mon, 15 Jan 2018 17:21:47 +0100
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Ladislav Michl <ladis@...ux-mips.org>, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [1/3] mfd/omap-usb-tll: Delete two error messages for a failed
 memory allocation in usbtll_omap_probe()

>>>> @@ -258,7 +256,6 @@ static int usbtll_omap_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>  						GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>  	if (!tll->ch_clk) {
>>>>  		ret = -ENOMEM;
>>>> -		dev_err(dev, "Couldn't allocate memory for channel clocks\n");
>>>
>>> I'd either leave this one, just to know which allocation failed or better use
>>> something like this …
>>
>> Are you aware on the structure for a Linux allocation failure report?
> 
> Just created one (not OMAP and not this driver, but that does not matter now):

Thanks for your example.


> ---[ end trace 3c79eadf2363e939 ]---
> max9867: probe of 1-0018 failed with error -12
> 
> driver was instructed to alloc insane number of bytes using devm_kzalloc in
> max9867_i2c_probe.
> Now, if probe function calls devm_kzalloc two times and one of them fails,
> you cannot easily say which one without looking at assembly listing.

Will this situation change with any other implementation for such backtraces?


> Or did I misunderstand your question?

No. - It seems that we have found a “common wavelength”.

Would it become acceptable to move the mentioned memory allocation into
an additional function implementation so that you could see a difference
from the function call stack dump already?

Regards,
Markus