linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/xen-scsiback: Need go to fail after xenbus_dev

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:	Tue, 30 Sep 2014 15:50:27 +0800
From:	Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@...il.com>
To:	Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
CC:	xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/xen-scsiback: Need go to fail after xenbus_dev_error()

On 9/30/14 14:59, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 09/30/2014 08:32 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
>> On 9/29/14 21:57, David Vrabel wrote:
>>> On 29/09/14 10:59, Chen Gang wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If no any additional reply within 2 days, I shall send patch v2 for it:
>>>>
>>>>    "use dev_warn() instead of xenbus_dev_error() and remove 'fail' code block"
>>>
>>> I think this driver is fine as-is and does not need any changes.
>>>
>>
>> OK, at least, at present, it is not a bug (will cause any issue).
>>
>> But for me, xenbus_dev_error() seems for printing generic errors,
>> dev_warn() is more suitable than it.
> 
> I'm unbiased regarding this one.
> 

After check all related code for xenbus_printf() and xenbus_dev_error(),
for me: if xenbus_printf() is for optional error, it will print warning;
all xenbus_dev_error() are not for optional error, except 2 area:

  drivers/pci/xen-pcifront.c:866:		xenbus_dev_error(pdev->xdev, err,
  drivers/pci/xen-pcifront.c:947:		xenbus_dev_error(pdev->xdev, err,

In fact, for me, not only they need be improved, but also skip 'err' for
pcifront_scan_root() and pcifront_rescan_root(), are they bugs? (I guess
they are). If they are really bugs, I shall send related patch for it.

>>
>> And 'fail' code block is useless now, need be removed, too (which will
>> let compiler report warning).
> 
> This should be part of the patch making the 'fail' block useless.
> 

Yeah, originally, it really should be, but if this patch can continue,
for me, can remove it in this patch, too (for the original patch, I
intended to remain it for discussing and analysing in this patch).

But all together, if you stick to remove 'fail' code block in original
patch, for me, it is OK.


Thanks.
-- 
Chen Gang

Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/