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: <20170627112344.GA52927@dhcp-216.srv.tuxera.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Jun 2017 14:23:44 +0300
From:   Rakesh Pandit <rakesh@...era.com>
To:     Frans Klaver <fransklaver@...il.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 01:01:22PM +0200, Frans Klaver wrote:
> 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?

Well nvm_reserve_luns either returns 0 or -EBUSY and it is unlikely
that return value would change and even if it does this can be
updated.