netdev - Re: [patch net-next] team: do not use -ENOENT

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:	Thu, 17 Jan 2013 22:15:32 +0100
From:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	stephen@...workplumber.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch net-next] team: do not use -ENOENT

Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:07:42PM CET, davem@...emloft.net wrote:
>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
>Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:52:12 +0100
>
>> Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 09:42:40PM CET, davem@...emloft.net wrote:
>>>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
>>>Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:33:47 +0100
>>>
>>>>>> @@ -2320,7 +2320,7 @@ static int team_nl_cmd_options_set(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info)
>>>>>>  			list_add(&opt_inst->tmp_list, &opt_inst_list);
>>>>>>  		}
>>>>>>  		if (!opt_found) {
>>>>>> -			err = -ENOENT;
>>>>>> +			err = -EINVAL;
>>>>>>  			goto team_put;
>>>>>>  		}
>>>>>>  	}
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm not really sure. But in this case, I do not think that is a problem.
>>>> 
>>>> 1) I'm most probably the only one (libteam) who is using this api and
>>>> libteam does not mind about what err code is returned in these cases.
>>>> 
>>>> 2) In this case, it is only about different number. And one number or
>>>> another, it does not imply userspace to behave differently. In other words,
>>>> userspace should not take different actions in case for example -ENOENT
>>>> or -ENODEV is returned.
>>>
>>>I agree with this analysis.
>>>
>>>But for the team_nl_cmd_options_set() case, I would strongly advise
>>>that you use some error code more descriptive than -EINVAL.  In fact
>>>the existing -ENOENT I feel is better, because it tells the caller
>>>what kind of problem there was.
>>>
>>>Even if you don't like the fact that -ENOENT is oriented towards file
>>>existence, it does convey a ton more information than -EINVAL does.
>> 
>> I understand your feeling, because I have the same one :)
>> But looking all over the code and on possible err codes as well, I did
>> not find any suitable err code to indicate some object was not found.
>> And since I recently saw email from Linus about the fact that -ENOENT
>> should be used only in relation to files, -EINVAL the "default:" in my
>> "switch()".
>
>Look in the packet scheduler API for how much we use -ENOENT in this
>kind of situation where the requested object to operate on could not
>be found.
>
>I think it is entirely appropriate to use -ENOENT, if not completely
>consistent with the rest of the networking.

Okay, fair enough. In that case, I believe that also the other 2
occurrences of -ENOENT in team driver are ok as well. Please scratch this
patch.

Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html