linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: add logging statement when kfifo

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: <20190710142406.GA6669@keyur-pc>
Date:   Wed, 10 Jul 2019 10:24:06 -0400
From:   Keyur Patel <iamkeyur96@...il.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, Alex Elder <elder@...nel.org>,
        Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, David Lin <dtwlin@...il.com>,
        greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: add logging statement when kfifo_alloc
 fails

On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 06:35:38PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 08:20:17AM -0400, Keyur Patel wrote:
> > Added missing logging statement when kfifo_alloc fails, to improve
> > debugging.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Keyur Patel <iamkeyur96@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/greybus/uart.c | 4 +++-
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/uart.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/uart.c
> > index b3bffe91ae99..86a395ae177d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/uart.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/uart.c
> > @@ -856,8 +856,10 @@ static int gb_uart_probe(struct gbphy_device *gbphy_dev,
> >  
> >  	retval = kfifo_alloc(&gb_tty->write_fifo, GB_UART_WRITE_FIFO_SIZE,
> >  			     GFP_KERNEL);
> > -	if (retval)
> > +	if (retval) {
> > +		pr_err("kfifo_alloc failed\n");
> >  		goto exit_buf_free;
> > +	}
> 
> You should have already gotten an error message from the log if this
> fails, from the kmalloc_array() call failing, right?
> 
> So why is this needed?  We have been trying to remove these types of
> messages and keep them in the "root" place where the failure happens.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

Didn't notice that. I agree that this will result only into redundancy. 
Quick look over files reveal that there are multiple places
where people are using print statements after memory allocation fails. 
Should I go ahead and send patches to remove those
redundant print statements?

Sorry, if you're receiving this message again.

Thnaks.
Keyur Patel