Message ID | c589a851-2bf6-c44f-1df7-11f242285a73@users.sourceforge.net (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 10:07 AM, SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> > Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 14:20:41 +0100 > > Omit an extra message for a memory allocation failure in this function. > > Link: http://events.linuxfoundation.org/sites/events/files/slides/LCJ16-Refactor_Strings-WSang_0.pdf > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> > --- > security/selinux/ss/policydb.c | 5 +---- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) I'm not going to remove an error message without some better reasoning in the patch description. Providing a link to slides is fine, but your commit message needs to convey the important information and I don't think that is the case here (what happens when that URL dies?). > diff --git a/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c b/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c > index fe8992382a71..53e6d06e772a 100644 > --- a/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c > +++ b/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c > @@ -2269,11 +2269,8 @@ int policydb_read(struct policydb *p, void *fp) > > rc = -ENOMEM; > policydb_str = kmalloc(len + 1, GFP_KERNEL); > - if (!policydb_str) { > - printk(KERN_ERR "SELinux: unable to allocate memory for policydb " > - "string of length %d\n", len); > + if (!policydb_str) > goto bad; > - } > > rc = next_entry(policydb_str, fp, len); > if (rc) { > -- > 2.11.0 >
>> Omit an extra message for a memory allocation failure in this function. >> >> Link: http://events.linuxfoundation.org/sites/events/files/slides/LCJ16-Refactor_Strings-WSang_0.pdf >> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> >> --- >> security/selinux/ss/policydb.c | 5 +---- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) > > I'm not going to remove an error message without some better reasoning > in the patch description. Providing a link to slides is fine, but > your commit message needs to convey the important information and I > don't think that is the case here (what happens when that URL dies?). Do you need an explicit reminder there that the function “kmalloc” provides its own error reporting already because the flag “__GFP_NOWARN” was not passed here? Regards, Markus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 8:13 AM, SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: >>> Omit an extra message for a memory allocation failure in this function. >>> >>> Link: http://events.linuxfoundation.org/sites/events/files/slides/LCJ16-Refactor_Strings-WSang_0.pdf >>> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> >>> --- >>> security/selinux/ss/policydb.c | 5 +---- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> I'm not going to remove an error message without some better reasoning >> in the patch description. Providing a link to slides is fine, but >> your commit message needs to convey the important information and I >> don't think that is the case here (what happens when that URL dies?). > > Do you need an explicit reminder there that the function “kmalloc” provides its own > error reporting already because the flag “__GFP_NOWARN” was not passed here? That is what I said by "better reasoning in the patch description", however, now that I'm looking at this again, I don't think I'm going to merge this. Yes, maybe in some cases it is a bit wasteful, but I like the error message.
> …, but I like the error message.
How do you think about to pass the flag “__GFP_NOWARN” if you like
this information more than the default error reporting of the function “kmalloc”?
Regards,
Markus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 1:56 AM, SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: >> …, but I like the error message. > > How do you think about to pass the flag “__GFP_NOWARN” if you like > this information more than the default error reporting of the function “kmalloc”? Possibly, although I would encourage you to just leave it as-is for the moment. Reviewing and merging patches carries a cost, and I would very much prefer to allocate my time/resources on changes that have a more significant impact. I don't want to discourage your from contributing to SELinux development, but I do want to strongly encourage you to contribute more meaningful patches.
diff --git a/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c b/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c index fe8992382a71..53e6d06e772a 100644 --- a/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c +++ b/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c @@ -2269,11 +2269,8 @@ int policydb_read(struct policydb *p, void *fp) rc = -ENOMEM; policydb_str = kmalloc(len + 1, GFP_KERNEL); - if (!policydb_str) { - printk(KERN_ERR "SELinux: unable to allocate memory for policydb " - "string of length %d\n", len); + if (!policydb_str) goto bad; - } rc = next_entry(policydb_str, fp, len); if (rc) {