linux-kernel - Re: efi/apple-properties: Checking error handling in unmarshal

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: <af278523-44af-3483-8503-10ec93f7a6c6@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Wed, 14 Feb 2018 09:21:00 +0100
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: efi/apple-properties: Checking error handling in
 unmarshal_devices()

> While the allocator does print an error when allocations fail,
> it may not be immediately apparent to the user what the
> *consequences* are.  In this case, the consequence is that the
> device properties will not be available for consumption by
> drivers and they may fail to probe or behave in entirely
> unexpected ways.

Would it make sense to indicate such a questionable software situation
be any return code?


> Hence I deliberately printed an error message here so that the user
> can make the connection between erratic behavior of drivers later on
> and the memory allocation error here.

Do you find this terse message really sufficient?

Can the mentioned properties be required for the desired system configuration?

Regards,
Markus