[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130522155710.GA16571@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 17:57:10 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.de.marchi@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usermodehelper: kill the sub_info->path[0] check
Hi Lucas,
On 05/21, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>
> Acked-By: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>
Thanks.
> > @@ -147,6 +147,9 @@ int __request_module(bool wait, const char *fmt, ...)
> > */
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(wait && current_is_async());
> >
> > + if (!modprobe_path[0])
> > + return 0;
> > +
>
> Any reason to not return -EINVAL here except for maintaining the
> previous behavior?
But for what?
Keep the previous behaviour is important. And this matches, say,
kobject_uevent_env().
> Checking the callers reveals just a few of them
> actually check the return value and IMO this is no different than the
> binary not existing and failing later on exec.
Yes, agreed. And perhaps request_module() is different. For example,
search_binary_handler(). Perhaps we should change this, but imho this
needs more patches/discussion.
This is like the previous commit 264b83c0 reverted by this patch, the
change tries to be simple and conservative.
Oleg.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists