linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] lightnvm: if LUNs are already allocated fix return

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 27 Jun 2017 14:39:08 +0300
From:   Rakesh Pandit <rakesh@...era.com>
To:     Frans Klaver <fransklaver@...il.com>
CC:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
        Matias Bjørling <m@...rling.me>,
        <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matias Bjørling <matias@...xlabs.com>,
        Javier González <jg@...htnvm.io>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] lightnvm: if LUNs are already allocated fix return

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 01:27:40PM +0200, Frans Klaver wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Rakesh Pandit <rakesh@...era.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 01:01:22PM +0200, Frans Klaver wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Rakesh Pandit <rakesh@...era.com> wrote:
> >> > While creating new device with NVM_DEV_CREATE if LUNs are already
> >> > allocated ioctl would return -ENOMEM which is wrong.  This patch
> >> > propagates -EBUSY from nvm_reserve_luns which is correct response.
> >> >
> >> > Fixes: ade69e243 ("lightnvm: merge gennvm with core")
> >> > Signed-off-by: Rakesh Pandit <rakesh@...era.com>
> >> > ---
> >> >
> >> > V2: return error code directly instead of using ret variable (Frans)
> >> >
> >> >  drivers/lightnvm/core.c | 2 +-
> >> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/lightnvm/core.c b/drivers/lightnvm/core.c
> >> > index b8f82f5..c5d71c6 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/lightnvm/core.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/lightnvm/core.c
> >> > @@ -253,7 +253,7 @@ static int nvm_create_tgt(struct nvm_dev *dev, struct nvm_ioctl_create *create)
> >> >         mutex_unlock(&dev->mlock);
> >> >
> >> >         if (nvm_reserve_luns(dev, s->lun_begin, s->lun_end))
> >> > -               return -ENOMEM;
> >> > +               return -EBUSY;
> >>
> >> Why aren't you propagating ret in this version?
> >
> > Well nvm_reserve_luns either returns 0 or -EBUSY and it is unlikely
> > that return value would change and even if it does this can be
> > updated.
> 
> If you propagate the result of nvm_reserve_luns(), the casual reader
> will immediately understand that any possible faulty result is
> returned. returning -EBUSY here might suggest you're overriding
> whatever this function returns.

I don't have a strong opinion for or against. That was being done
irrespective of this change already.  But you have a valid argument.
I would post V3.

Thanks,