linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] goldfish: Return proper error code

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]

Date:	Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:20:32 -0500 (EST)
From:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
cc:	Amitoj Kaur Chawla <amitoj1606@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] goldfish: Return proper error code



On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 22:53:29 +0530
> Amitoj Kaur Chawla <amitoj1606@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > This change has been made with the goal that kernel functions should
> > return something more descriptive than -1 on failure.
> >
> > Change the return value on valid_batchbuffer_addr() failure from -1
> > to -EINVAL.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Amitoj Kaur Chawla <amitoj1606@...il.com>
>
> NAK. It's not user visible, it's a piece of code that has a pile of other
> more important fixes needed first, and it's also as far as possible kept
> aligned with the Android upstream.
>
> If it were some random otherwise unchanging bit of code then it might
> just about make sense but in this case no - especially when you only
> change one of the two returns of -1 !

The other has been chahged already in a patch in the staging tree.  Maybe
it's not in linux-next yet?

julia