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  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, 14 Jun 2019 10:57:42 +0530
From:   Anshuman Khandual <>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <>
Cc:     Roman Penyaev <>,,,
        Rick Edgecombe <>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <>,
        Mike Rapoport <>,
        Roman Gushchin <>, Michal Hocko <>,
        "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <>,
        Andrew Morton <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc: Check absolute error return from

On 06/13/2019 09:01 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 08:51:17PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> acceptable ? What we have currently is wrong where vmap_pmd_range() could
>> just wrap EBUSY as ENOMEM and send up the call chain.
> It's not wrong.  We do it in lots of places.  Unless there's a caller
> which really needs to know the difference, it's often better than
> returning the "real error".

I can understand the fact that because there are no active users of this
return code, the current situation has been alright. But then I fail to
understand how can EBUSY be made ENOMEM and let the caller to think that
vmap_page_rage() failed because of lack of memory when it is clearly not
the case. It is really surprising how it can be acceptable inside kernel
(init_mm) page table functions which need to be thorough enough.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists