linux-kernel - Re: [RFT 3/7] firmware: make fw_add_devm

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]

Date:   Wed, 28 Feb 2018 01:20:12 +0000
From:   "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>, cantabile.desu@...il.com,
        Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Martin Fuzzey <mfuzzey@...keon.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, pali.rohar@...il.com,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com,
        Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>,
        nbroeking@...com, Vikram Mulukutla <markivx@...eaurora.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Abhay_Salunke@...l.com, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
        jewalt@...innovations.com, oneukum@...e.com,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFT 3/7] firmware: make fw_add_devm_name() return 0 if cache
 present

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 03:31:11PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 3:20 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...nel.org> wrote:
> > Currently fw_add_devm_name() returns 1 if the firmware cache
> > was already set. This makes it complicated for us to check for
> > correctness. It is actually non-fatal if the firmware cache
> > is already setup, so just return 0, and simplify the checkers.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...nel.org>
> 
> That'll teach me to read all the patches first. ;)
> 
> Honestly, I'd just fold this into the prior patch: there's only one
> caller and it's exactly about checking the return value.

Sounds good.

  Luis