linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] genirq: Add error code reporting to irq_{reserve,destroy}

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

Message-ID: <20160422154816.GA10886@mredfearn-linux>
Date:	Fri, 22 Apr 2016 16:48:17 +0100
From:	Matt Redfearn <matt.redfearn@...tec.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:	<lisa.parratt@...tec.com>, <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	<ralf@...ux-mips.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>, <marc.zyngier@....com>,
	<linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>, Qais Yousef <qsyousef@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] genirq: Add error code reporting to
 irq_{reserve,destroy}_ipi

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 05:35:46PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Matt Redfearn wrote:
> 
> > Make these functions return appropriate error codes when something goes
> > wrong.
> 
> And the reason for this change is?

Hi Thomas,

Mainly for irq_destroy_ipi, where the first patch in the set makes
it possible for the request to fail. But in general with both of these
functions it is possible for them to silently fail without giving the
caller any idication if inapropriate arguments are passed.

Thanks,
Matt