linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/ioapic: Return suitable error code in mp_map_gsi_to

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

Date:   Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:58:33 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/ioapic: Return suitable error code in
 mp_map_gsi_to_irq()

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

> On Mon, 2017-01-16 at 15:30 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > mp_map_gsi_to_irq() in some cases might return legacy -1, which would
> > be
> > wrongly interpreted as -EPERM.
> > 
> > Correct those cases to return proper error codes.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
> > b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
> > index 945e512a112a..99cee86b7d17 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
> > @@ -1107,12 +1107,12 @@ int mp_map_gsi_to_irq(u32 gsi, unsigned int
> > flags, struct irq_alloc_info *info)
> >  
> >  	ioapic = mp_find_ioapic(gsi);
> >  	if (ioapic < 0)
> > -		return -1;
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> >  
> >  	pin = mp_find_ioapic_pin(ioapic, gsi);
> >  	idx = find_irq_entry(ioapic, pin, mp_INT);
> >  	if ((flags & IOAPIC_MAP_CHECK) && idx < 0)
> > -		return -1;
> > +		return -ENODEV;
> 
> Looking one more time...
> Or should it be other way around: -ENODEV (ioapic < 0), -EINVAL (here)?

ENODEV for both cases I think,