Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
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 16:35:00 +0800
Message-Id: <20220314083500.2501146-1-jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

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.