linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] drivers: Add visorbus to the drivers/virt directory

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]

Date:   Sun, 11 Sep 2016 11:16:29 +0200
From:   'Greg KH' <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     "Sell, Timothy C" <Timothy.Sell@...sys.com>
Cc:     "Kershner, David A" <David.Kershner@...sys.com>,
        "dzickus@...hat.com" <dzickus@...hat.com>,
        "prarit@...hat.com" <prarit@...hat.com>,
        "driverdev-devel@...uxdriverproject.org" 
        <driverdev-devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
        *S-Par-Maintainer <SParMaintainer@...sys.com>,
        "janani.rvchndrn@...il.com" <janani.rvchndrn@...il.com>,
        "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
        "jes.sorensen@...hat.com" <jes.sorensen@...hat.com>,
        "Binder, David Anthony" <David.Binder@...sys.com>,
        "hofrat@...dl.org" <hofrat@...dl.org>,
        "dan.j.williams@...el.com" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "nhorman@...hat.com" <nhorman@...hat.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com" <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] drivers: Add visorbus to the drivers/virt directory

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 04:29:07PM +0000, Sell, Timothy C wrote:
> E.g., so even though no obvious error-recovery occurs above in-response to
> kzalloc() failures, the fact that -CONTROLVM_RESP_ERROR_KMALLOC_FAILED is
> provided to bus_epilog() is in-fact sufficient to report the error.
> 
> Is this making sense?

Yes, it does a bit more, but, you should make this more explicit.

> Can you suggest how we might modify our code to make this error-handling /
> recovery strategy clearer?

Have a real error be returned by the function, and then have the caller
handle the error by propagating it back to the firmware through the
message.  That might save you a lot of boiler-plate error handling logic
as well, right?

That will make it obvious that if an error happens, it is caught, and
how it is handled correctly.

Does that help?

thanks,

greg k-h