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  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:   Tue, 22 Jan 2019 16:31:02 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <>
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Vlastimil Babka <>,
        David Rientjes <>,
        Laura Abbott <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: no need to check return value of debugfs_create

On Tue 22-01-19 16:21:13, Greg KH wrote:
> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> index 022d4cbb3618..18ee657fb918 100644
> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -1998,8 +1998,7 @@ DEFINE_SHOW_ATTRIBUTE(memblock_debug);
>  static int __init memblock_init_debugfs(void)
>  {
>  	struct dentry *root = debugfs_create_dir("memblock", NULL);
> -	if (!root)
> -		return -ENXIO;
> +
>  	debugfs_create_file("memory", 0444, root,
>  			    &memblock.memory, &memblock_debug_fops);
>  	debugfs_create_file("reserved", 0444, root,

I haven't really read the whole patch but this has just hit my eyes. Is
this a correct behavior?

Documentations says:
 * @parent: a pointer to the parent dentry for this file.  This should be a
 *          directory dentry if set.  If this parameter is NULL, then the
 *          file will be created in the root of the debugfs filesystem.

so in case of failure we would get those debugfs files outside of their
intended scope. I believe it is much more correct to simply not create
anything, no?
Michal Hocko

Powered by blists - more mailing lists