linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] gpio: mockup: improve the error message

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]

Message-ID: <CAMRc=Mfbxzk-Ezmi5y8HVwvmb3vcZ8TzMBxuGg+=E84gj806yQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:14:49 +0200
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
        Bamvor Jian Zhang <bamvor.zhangjian@...aro.org>,
        "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] gpio: mockup: improve the error message

2017-05-31 17:26 GMT+02:00 Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>:
> 2017-05-31 17:00 GMT+02:00 Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>:
>> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
>>> 2017-05-30 20:59 GMT+02:00 Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>:
>>>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
>>>>> Indicate the error number and make the message a bit more elaborate.
>>>>
>>>>> +                       dev_err(dev,
>>>>> +                               "adding gpiochip failed: %d (base: %d, ngpio: %d)\n",
>>>>> +                               ret, base, base < 0 ? ngpio : base + ngpio);
>>>>
>>>> You may consider to use
>>>> 'gpio_mockup_add' instead of 'adding gpiochip'. The latter points the
>>>> reader first to gpiochip_add family of functions while you run a
>>>> wrapper on top of it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But this message can also be emitted if the module params are invalid,
>>> in which case we don't even enter gpio_mockup_add().
>>
>> ...which unveils bad phrasing in the message. In that case "adding
>> gpiochip" is also misleading.
>>
>
> Not really. You can pass an invalid value later in the list which will
> only become apparent when it's reached. In that case previous
> gpiochips will be added correctly but probe will fail with -EINVAL
> after reaching the bad one in which case the message is right. I hope
> I'm being clear.
>

Which made me think: maybe the next step would be to parse the
arguments in the module init function and probe each dummy gpiochip
separately...

Best regards,
Bartosz Golaszewski