[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20220314083500.2501146-1-jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 16:35:00 +0800
From: Jiasheng Jiang <jiasheng@...as.ac.cn>
To: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc: stephen@...workplumber.org, kys@...rosoft.com,
haiyangz@...rosoft.com, sthemmin@...rosoft.com, wei.liu@...nel.org,
decui@...rosoft.com, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, hawk@...nel.org,
john.fastabend@...il.com, andrii@...nel.org, kafai@...com,
songliubraving@...com, yhs@...com, kpsingh@...nel.org,
linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
Jiasheng Jiang <jiasheng@...as.ac.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hv_netvsc: Add check for kvmalloc_array
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 04:13:59PM +0800, Greg KH wrote:
>> The failure of allocation is not included in the tests.
>> And as far as I know, there is not any tool that has the
>> ability to fail the allocation.
>
> There are tools that do this.
>
Thanks, could you please tell me the tools?
Jiang
>> But I think that for safety, the cost of redundant and harmless
>> check is acceptable.
>> Also, checking after allocation is a good program pattern.
>
> That's fine, it's how you clean up that is the problem that not everyone
> gets correct, which is why it is good to verify that you do not
> introduce problems.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists