linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] add_partition silently ignored errors

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]

Message-ID: <20071030165608.GA2601@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:56:08 -0700
From:	Dirk Hohndel <hohndel@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, Andries Brouwer <aeb@....nl>,
	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add_partition silently ignored errors

On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 10:09:34AM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:07:42 +0100,
> Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:
> 
> > >  
> > > -void add_partition(struct gendisk *disk, int part, sector_t start, sector_t len, int flags)
> > > +int add_partition(struct gendisk *disk, int part, sector_t start, sector_t len, int flags)
> > >  {
> > >  	struct hd_struct *p;
> > >  
> > >  	p = kzalloc(sizeof(*p), GFP_KERNEL);
> > >  	if (!p)
> > > -		return;
> > > +		return -1;
> > 
> > Why not return the 'correct' error codes, instead of always -1 and
> > making that -EBUSY at the caller? This one should be -ENOMEM.
> 
> Oops, you're right. I agree.

Duh. That was dumb of me.

> > IIRC, Al recently vetoed a similar patch. As far as I'm concerned, with
> > the correct return values, the patch then looks fine to me.
> 
> We need some kind of check concerning the kobject to avoid mysterious
> errors (especially checking for the failed kobject_add() is needed).
> Whether we want just to inform the user of the failure instead of
> failing the function is another question.

What are you suggesting? I'd love to make the behaviour consistent everywhere
(and am willing to go through things in order to make that happen), but what is
the consistent behaviour that we'd want?

/D
-
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/