linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.12-rc7] KVM: Fix modprobe failure for kvm_intel/kvm

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: <20131030155930.GA23433@kroah.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:59:30 -0700
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@...onical.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.12-rc7] KVM: Fix modprobe failure for kvm_intel/kvm_amd

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 04:46:28PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 30/10/2013 16:39, Raghavendra K T ha scritto:
> >>
> >> Why even error out at all here?  You should never care about debugfs
> >> file creation return values, so why pass any error back up the stack?
> > 
> > We could change this to return 0, but we will still be left with
> > kvm_main.c: kvm_init_debug() function which creates the kvm  debugfs
> > directory. (I thought Paolo and Gleb's ack would be needed for
> > that change since it would be a bigger decision for me)
> > 
> > So I just made the patch to fix only Linus's concern.
> 
> Even if it is okay to exit and not create the files (and I think it's a
> bit surprising), I'd like at least a printk to signal what's happening.
>  But there should be no reason for debugfs directory creation to fail in
> the end, except for basic mistakes such as the one that Tim reported, so
> I think it's better to report the failure.

Creation will "fail" if debugfs is not enabled, so spiting out printk
messages in that case is not a good idea.

greg k-h
--
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/