linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kvm:arm:Fix error handling in the function vgic_v3

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150806120850.GD4657@cbox>
Date:	Thu, 6 Aug 2015 14:08:50 +0200
From:	Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>
To:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>, nick <xerofoify@...il.com>,
	"gleb@...nel.org" <gleb@...nel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu>,
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm:arm:Fix error handling in the function vgic_v3_probe

On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 02:00:55PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 
> 
> On 06/08/2015 10:06, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > If this structure of function pointers can handle function pointers with a return type of 
> > > void I will be glad to do what you request otherwise this would require a major rewrite
> > > of kvm arm subsystem for a very simple bug fix.
> > 
> > Just like Paolo said, the error you report should never happen, and
> > would be caught by a WARN_ON() the first time anyone boots the kernel.
> > Also, failing to register the device ops results in not being able to
> > instantiate a VGIC. No harm done. I really don't understand why you want
> > to rewrite the probe functions.
> 
> I think he just misunderstood my suggestion.  I didn't suggest making
> the probe functions return void.  I suggested that
> kvm_register_device_ops return void.
> 
s390 seems to actually deal with the return value of this function and
fail to init KVM at all if it fails, but on the other hand, this
function only fails if you're doing something truly stupid and
internal-to-kvm incoherent, so I think it's fair to just do a WARN_ON()
or even BUG_ON() and make the register function a void.

-Christoffer
--
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/