linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] ACPI: fix acpi_parse_entries

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: <CAJZ5v0htLm0r0gk+t=_acBfeVA5ErW-bDRDEXHtKKQsAapEC5g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 1 Jul 2016 23:46:27 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:	Al Stone <ahs3@...hat.com>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ACPI: fix acpi_parse_entries_array() so it traverses
 all subtables

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Al Stone <ahs3@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 07/01/2016 03:32 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:21 PM, Al Stone <ahs3@...hat.com> wrote:
>>> Without this patch, the acpi_parse_entries_array() function will return
>>> the very first time there is any error found in either the array of
>>> callback functions or if one of the callbacks returns an non-zero value.
>>> However, the array of callbacks could still have valid entries further
>>> on in the array, or the callbacks may be able to process subsequent
>>> subtables without error.  The change here makes the function consistent
>>> with its description so that it will properly return the sum of all
>>> matching entries for all proc handlers, instead of stopping abruptly
>>> as it does today.
>>
>> I'm not sure I follow.
>>
>> You seem to be saying that the function should process all of the
>> subtables etc even though errors have been found for some of them, but
>> it still will return an error in the end if there are any errors.  How
>> exactly does it help to continue processing in case of an error, then?
>
> The use case I have in mind is to simply count all of the subtables of
> a certain type.  If for some reason, the callback -- or any other callback
> -- fails, the traversal of all the subtables stops immediately.  So, I
> could have two callbacks, and if the first one fails on the first subtable
> of its type, traversal stops.  The count for the second callback will be
> zero which may or may not be correct.

It will be zero, because the callback has not been invoked at all.
Why is this incorrect?