linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 02/26] mm, slub: allocate private object map for validate_slab

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: <20210525113317.GM30378@techsingularity.net>
Date:   Tue, 25 May 2021 12:33:17 +0100
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 02/26] mm, slub: allocate private object map for
 validate_slab_cache()

On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 12:36:52PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > Most callers of validate_slab_cache don't care about the return value
> > except when the validate sysfs file is written. Should a simply
> > informational message be displayed for -ENOMEM in case a writer to
> > validate fails and it's not obvious it was because of an allocation
> > failure?
> 
> he other callers are all in the effectively dead resiliency_test() code, which
> has meanwhile been replaced in mmotm by kunit tests meanwhile. But it's true
> those don't check the results either for now.
> 

Ok.

> > It's a fairly minor concern so whether you add a message or not
> 
> I think I'll rather fix up the tests. Or do you mean that -ENOMEM for a sysfs
> write is also not enough and there should be a dmesg explanation for that case?
> 

I mean the -ENOMEM for a sysfs write. While it's very unlikely, it might
would explain an unexpected write failure.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs