Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Jiasheng Jiang <jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
To:     gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Cc:     stephen@networkplumber.org, kys@microsoft.com,
        haiyangz@microsoft.com, sthemmin@microsoft.com, wei.liu@kernel.org,
        decui@microsoft.com, davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org,
        ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, hawk@kernel.org,
        john.fastabend@gmail.com, andrii@kernel.org, kafai@fb.com,
        songliubraving@fb.com, yhs@fb.com, kpsingh@kernel.org,
        linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        Jiasheng Jiang <jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hv_netvsc: Add check for kvmalloc_array
Date:   Mon, 14 Mar 2022 16:05:14 +0800
Message-Id: <20220314080514.2501092-1-jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 03:33:49PM +0800, Greg KH wrote:
>> Thanks, I have tested the patch by kernel_patch_verify,
> 
> What is that?

It a Linux kernel patch static verification helper tool.
Link: https://github.com/nmenon/kernel_patch_verify

>> and all the tests are passed.
> 
> What tests exactly?  How did you fail this allocation?

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.
But I think that for safety, the cost of redundant and harmless
check is acceptable.
Also, checking after allocation is a good program pattern.

Thanks,
Jiang