linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] arm64: dump: no need to check return value of debugfs

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: <20190130193348.GC20667@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Jan 2019 20:33:48 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Peng Donglin <dolinux.peng@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] arm64: dump: no need to check return value of
 debugfs_create functions

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 06:21:02PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 03:41:11PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > When calling debugfs functions, there is no need to ever check the
> > return value.  The function can work or not, but the code logic should
> > never do something different based on this.
> > 
> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
> > Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
> > Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
> > Cc: Peng Donglin <dolinux.peng@...il.com>
> > Cc: <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/include/asm/ptdump.h | 9 +++------
> >  arch/arm64/mm/dump.c            | 4 ++--
> >  arch/arm64/mm/ptdump_debugfs.c  | 7 ++-----
> >  3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> Are you taking this via your tree, or would you like us to queue it in
> arm64?

What ever is easiest for you is fine with me, I can handle it either
way, just let me know.

thanks,

greg k-h