linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] livepatch: Add force sysfs attribute

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.20.1705181518060.31625@pobox.suse.cz>
Date:   Thu, 18 May 2017 15:20:29 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
To:     Libor Pechacek <lpechacek@...e.com>
cc:     jpoimboe@...hat.com, jeyu@...hat.com, jikos@...nel.org,
        pmladek@...e.com, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] livepatch: Add force sysfs attribute

On Thu, 18 May 2017, Libor Pechacek wrote:

> On Thu 18-05-17 14:00:41, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> >
> > +		pr_info("no patching in progress. Force not allowed\n");
> 
> proposing smoother wording and information sharing
> pr_info("no patching in progress, forced action (%d) ineffective", val);

That is better. Thanks.

> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	switch (val) {
> 
> I felt strong confusion for a while looking at a function what does nothing. A
> comment that this is intentionally an empty shell, at this stage, would be
> welcome.

Yes, I wanted to keep that sysfs glue separate from both implementations 
to make the review easier. Despite the ugly outcome. And it is confusing.

Comment sounds good.

Thanks,
Miroslav

> > +	default:
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return count;
> > +}