linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.21-rc4-mm1

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, 27 Mar 2007 19:17:49 +0200
From:	Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
To:	"Kay Sievers" <kay.sievers@...y.org>
Cc:	"Eric Rannaud" <eric.rannaud@...il.com>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Larry Finger" <larry.finger@...inger.net>,
	"Matt Mackall" <mpm@...enic.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	"Monakhov Dmitriy" <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.21-rc4-mm1

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:25:57 +0200,
"Kay Sievers" <kay.sievers@...y.org> wrote:

> I don't see any point in deregistering a kernel device, if the event
> to userspace goes wrong, or a subsytem returns a non-zero value in the
> filter.

But if we filter the event, we just return 0?

> Checking the uevent return value, will not prevent any malfunction,
> usually this kind of "error handling" just prevents bringing up a
> whole subsystem, or booting-up a box, because the needed device does
> not exist at all.

OK, if we consider uevents to be non-vital to a functioning device.

OTOH, I think using something like uevent_suppress (maybe via
dev_uevent_filter?) is a saner way to suppress a uevent than to return
an error code in the uevent function.
-
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/