linux-kernel - Re: [for-next][PATCH 7/7] tracing: Use pr_err() instead of WARN() for memory failures

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200126164032.7ac82cc0@rorschach.local.home>
Date:   Sun, 26 Jan 2020 16:40:32 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [for-next][PATCH 7/7] tracing: Use pr_err() instead of WARN()
 for memory failures

On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 13:07:36 -0800
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:

> > That sounds more generic. This is specific for my own tracing tests to
> > look for. As the point is, it is *not* to dump_stack, and still report
> > the error.  
> 
> __GFP_NOWARN is available too.

I honestly don't care if there's a dump_stack or not. I just removed the
WARN_ON. If the allocation causes a dump_stack() then that's fine, but
I still like to have a bit more information at what failed to allocate,
than just a offset into a function.

The point of this patch was simply to remove WARN_ON() that caused
fuzzers to fail.

-- Steve