linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Time out for possible dead loops during queued invalidation wait

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: <20090527154816.23541b2a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 27 May 2009 15:48:16 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
Cc:	dwmw2@...radead.org, mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Time out for possible dead loops during queued
 invalidation wait

On Wed, 27 May 2009 15:40:35 -0700
"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com> wrote:

> >> +			WARN(1, "No space in invalidation queue.\n");
> >> +			return -ENOSPC;
> >
> >ENOSPC means "your disk filled up".  I think it makes no sense to use
> >that error code in this context, even though it kinda sounds the same.
> >
> 
> Which error code is better? Is EAGAIN ok?

That depends on driver details - probably EIO would be suitable, dunno.

But all the callers of qi_submit_sync() seem to just drop the error
code on the floor:

	/* should never fail */
	qi_submit_sync(&desc, iommu);

and may well cause a kernel crash as a result.
--
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/