netdev - RE: [PATCH 19/24] sunrpc: Remove unnecessary OOM logging messages

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]

Date:	Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:08:41 -0700
From:	"Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
To:	"Boaz Harrosh" <bharrosh@...asas.com>,
	"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	<joe@...ches.com>, <bfields@...ldses.org>, <neilb@...e.de>,
	<linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 19/24] sunrpc: Remove unnecessary OOM logging messages

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boaz Harrosh [mailto:bharrosh@...asas.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 5:55 PM
> To: David Miller
> Cc: Myklebust, Trond; joe@...ches.com; bfields@...ldses.org;
> neilb@...e.de; linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org; netdev@...r.kernel.org;
> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/24] sunrpc: Remove unnecessary OOM logging
> messages
> 
> On 08/29/2011 02:37 PM, David Miller wrote:
> > From: "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
> > Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:36:17 -0700
> >
> >> Big NACK...
> >>
> >> By whose standard are those "not useful"?
> >
> > By mine, that's for sure.  It's duplicating something that the
> allocation
> > layers are already going to print.
> 
> I have a question about that. Are the dprints going to show the stack
> backtrace?
> Otherwise how can I see which exact allocation failed and was not
> properly handled?
> 
> If yes above? then I'm not sure I like it either, because am I'll be
> getting a full
> stack backtrace for every failed allocation?
> 
> But I might like it if I try. How do I turn on allocation failures
> prints?
> Can I filter out to print only GFP_KERNEL failures and or other GFP
> combinations?

Right. If every GFP_ATOMIC or GFP_NOWAIT is going to print out stack traces, then we're heading for absolute insanity. If not, then the existing dprintk()s make a lot more sense, 'cos they are turned on only when the administrator notices a problem, and is trying to debug it.

Trond