linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/5] relayfs: introduce dump of relayfs statistics function

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: <CAL+tcoAQ9MMXC1sMvFrdMhJWTooshODxoaz8Ew-hP5+V3TN9JA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 11:48:47 +0800
From: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, rostedt@...dmis.org, mhiramat@...nel.org, 
	mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>, Yushan Zhou <katrinzhou@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/5] relayfs: introduce dump of relayfs statistics function

On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 11:41 AM Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 May 2025 10:26:45 +0800 Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Maybe we don't need to check !chan either.  Can it be NULL here?
> >
> > It depends on how users call this. If users call this without
> > initialization of chan, relay_dump() can avoid the crash. It works
> > like kfree() which prevents the NULL object from being freed.
>
> hm, OK.  Generally, I don't think that kernel code should be very
> tolerant of bugs in the caller.  If the caller passes us bad stuff then
> that's the caller's fault and the caller should be fixed.  If the
> client code responds to bad input with a nice solid oops, then great!
> The caller will get fixed.

I learned. Thanks. I will skip the check for that.

>
> > BTW, should I merge this commit [1] into the series in V2 so that you
> > can easily review?
> >
> > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250507134225.63248-1-kerneljasonxing@gmail.com/
>
> That seems unrelated to this work so it seems inappropriate to combine
> the two.

This series is built on top of [1].

>
> I skipped [1] because I'm waiting for overall clarity on what's
> happening with relay[fs].

Do you refer to this thread[2]? Well, that conversation/reply made me
feel lost. I believe you've already seen that. If so, it seems we're
working on the dead code together....

[2]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/70293376-71b0-4b9d-b3c1-224b640f470b@kernel.dk/

Thanks,
Jason