linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mm/vmalloc: Print a warning message first on failure

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]

Date:   Tue, 11 May 2021 14:43:01 +0200
From:   Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...ymobile.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mm/vmalloc: Print a warning message first on
 failure

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 02:58:18AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 06:52:38PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 May 2021 12:33:42 +0200 Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Please find the v4 version of the patch that is in question:
> > > 
> > > >From 7e27e4ac8f299ae244e9e0e90e0292ae2c08d37d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > From: "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com>
> > > Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 23:41:21 +0200
> > > Subject: [PATCH v4 1/1] mm/vmalloc: Print a warning message first on failure
> > 
> > Added, thanks.
> > 
> > Matthew has a point of course, but I do think that any console driver
> > which tries to allocate memory within the cotext of printk() is so
> > pathetic that it isn't worth compromising core code to cater for it...
> 
> I'm fine with v4 of this patch, fwiw.  I saw no advantage to the earlier
> version, but now that the advantage has been explained, the advantage
> outweighs the disadvantage.

Thanks!

The point about an extra memory for printk is correct. From the other
hand i am not able to recall issues related to lack of memory for
printk() to emit a message. At least on our mobile devices i have not
seen such scenarios.

--
Vlad Rezki