linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] init: make init failures more explicit

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:	Fri, 18 Oct 2013 11:32:13 +0200
From:	Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@...e-electrons.com>
To:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Embedded <linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] init: make init failures more explicit

Hi Geert,

On 10/18/2013 11:23 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Michael Opdenacker
> <michael.opdenacker@...e-electrons.com> wrote:
>> +       if (ret && ret != -ENOENT) {
>> +               pr_err("Starting init: %s exists but couldn't execute it\n",
> I think it makes sense to also print the value of ret here.
> Apart from your -ENOEXEC case, peeking a bit around, it can be also be
> -EINVAL, -ENOMEM (debug binary too big for small embedded system?),
> -EACCES, -E2BIG, ...
I agree. It would definitely make sense. I'll propose a new version.

Many thanks!

Cheers,

Michael.

-- 
Michael Opdenacker, CEO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
+33 484 258 098

--
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/