linux-kernel - Re: Why is device_create_file __must

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, 10 Oct 2006 17:03:58 +1000
From:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc:	greg@...ah.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Why is device_create_file __must_check?

Andrew Morton writes:

> > So we have to add printks in all sorts of places where the
> > device_create_file has never failed before.  If you're that concerned,
> 
> aren't you concerned too?

Not about the ones that have shown no sign of failing, no...

Most of the sites I have looked at have been cases where the kernel
genuinely doesn't care whether the device_create_file call succeeded
or failed.  Adding an if and printk in all these places seems like
pointless bloat when it could be done in one place - namely
device_create_file.  In one or two cases the return value from
device_create_file can be returned as its caller's return value, but
these were the minority.  In no cases that I have looked at was there
any other suitable action to take.

> > why not add a WARN_ON(error) in device_create_file() ?
> 
> That might be suitable, yup.

Greg claims that people ignore WARN_ON messages.  If that's true, I
fail to see how adding printks will help.

Paul.
-
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/