linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] lightnvm: if LUNs are already allocated fix return

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: <CAH6sp9MMAenKxknXYkCwOY9H7h_CT9zkBTvrykssVMPOdGtzqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Jun 2017 13:01:22 +0200
From:   Frans Klaver <fransklaver@...il.com>
To:     Rakesh Pandit <rakesh@...era.com>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
        Matias Bjørling <m@...rling.me>,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matias Bjørling <matias@...xlabs.com>,
        Javier González <jg@...htnvm.io>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] lightnvm: if LUNs are already allocated fix return

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Rakesh Pandit <rakesh@...era.com> wrote:
> While creating new device with NVM_DEV_CREATE if LUNs are already
> allocated ioctl would return -ENOMEM which is wrong.  This patch
> propagates -EBUSY from nvm_reserve_luns which is correct response.
>
> Fixes: ade69e243 ("lightnvm: merge gennvm with core")
> Signed-off-by: Rakesh Pandit <rakesh@...era.com>
> ---
>
> V2: return error code directly instead of using ret variable (Frans)
>
>  drivers/lightnvm/core.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/lightnvm/core.c b/drivers/lightnvm/core.c
> index b8f82f5..c5d71c6 100644
> --- a/drivers/lightnvm/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/lightnvm/core.c
> @@ -253,7 +253,7 @@ static int nvm_create_tgt(struct nvm_dev *dev, struct nvm_ioctl_create *create)
>         mutex_unlock(&dev->mlock);
>
>         if (nvm_reserve_luns(dev, s->lun_begin, s->lun_end))
> -               return -ENOMEM;
> +               return -EBUSY;

Why aren't you propagating ret in this version?