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]
Message-ID: <CAFLxGvysPg3FO4kT0QrRsYTr219WVttQMeat_StqbifTPrGLmA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 May 2019 23:00:31 +0200
From:   Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
To:     "Shreya Gangan (shgangan)" <shgangan@...co.com>
Cc:     "linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Removal of dump_stack()s from /fs/ubifs/io.c

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 10:45 PM Shreya Gangan (shgangan)
<shgangan@...co.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>  /fs/ubifs/io.c has dump_stack() in multiple functions upon errors and sometimes warnings.
> Since the error and warning messages seem to be unique, the functional value of these dump_stacks is not apparent.
> Why are these dump_stacks required and what issues might occur upon the removal of these?

They are not required, but they are just useful. While you are right
that the locations within UBIFS
are unique, they are not for the whole kernel context.
Filesystem functions can get called via many different paths from VFS...

Why do you want to remove them, what is the benefit?

-- 
Thanks,
//richard

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ