| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20061004130932.GC18800@harddisk-recovery.com> Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 15:09:32 +0200 From: Erik Mouw <erik@...ddisk-recovery.com> To: Suzuki Kp <suzuki@...ibm.com> Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org> Subject: Re: [RFC] PATCH to fix rescan_partitions to return errors properly On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 06:00:36PM -0700, Suzuki Kp wrote: > Currently the rescan_partition returns 0 (success), even if it is unable > to rescan the partition information ( may be due to disks offline, I/O > error reading the table or unknown partition ). This would make ioctl() > calls succeed for BLKRRPART requests even if partitions were not scanned > properly, which is not a good thing to do. > > Attached here is patch to fix the issue. The patch makes > rescan_partition to return -EINVAL for unknown partitions and -EIO for > disk I/O errors ( or when disks are offline ). I don't think it's a good idea to return an error when there's an unknown partition table. How do you differentiate between a device that isn't partitioned at all and a device with an unknown partition table? Better return 0 on an unknown partition table. Erik -- +-- Erik Mouw -- www.harddisk-recovery.com -- +31 70 370 12 90 -- | Lab address: Delftechpark 26, 2628 XH, Delft, The Netherlands - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists