linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: check-integrity: Fix returned errno codes

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150923084749.GS12815@suse.cz>
Date:	Wed, 23 Sep 2015 10:47:49 +0200
From:	David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
To:	Luis de Bethencourt <luisbg@....samsung.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, clm@...com, jbacik@...com,
	linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: check-integrity: Fix returned errno codes

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 05:29:38PM +0100, Luis de Bethencourt wrote:
> check-integrity is using -1 instead of the -ENOMEM defined macro to
> specify that a buffer allocation failed. Since the error number is
> propagated, the caller will get a -EPERM which is the wrong error
> condition.

Agreed. btrfsic_process_superblock can be called from the mount path so
getting EPERM would be confusing.

> Also, the smatch tool complains with the following warnings:
> btrfsic_process_superblock() warn: returning -1 instead of -ENOMEM is sloppy
> btrfsic_read_block() warn: returning -1 instead of -ENOMEM is sloppy
> 
> Signed-off-by: Luis de Bethencourt <luisbg@....samsung.com>

Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>
--
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/