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: <20071030080742.GE4993@kernel.dk>
Date:	Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:07:42 +0100
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Dirk Hohndel <hohndel@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.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 Mon, Oct 29 2007, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
> diff --git a/block/ioctl.c b/block/ioctl.c
> index 52d6385..bb3933e 100644
> --- a/block/ioctl.c
> +++ b/block/ioctl.c
> @@ -61,7 +61,10 @@ static int blkpg_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev, struct blkpg_ioctl_arg __user
>  				}
>  			}
>  			/* all seems OK */
> -			add_partition(disk, part, start, length, ADDPART_FLAG_NONE);
> +			if (add_partition(disk, part, start, length, ADDPART_FLAG_NONE)) {
> +				mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_mutex);
> +				return -EBUSY;
> +			}
>  			mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_mutex);
>  			return 0;
>  		case BLKPG_DEL_PARTITION:
> diff --git a/fs/partitions/check.c b/fs/partitions/check.c
> index 722e12e..cd92471 100644
> --- a/fs/partitions/check.c
> +++ b/fs/partitions/check.c
> @@ -368,13 +368,13 @@ void delete_partition(struct gendisk *disk, int part)
>  	kobject_put(&p->kobj);
>  }
>  
> -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.

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.

-- 
Jens Axboe

-
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/