linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kobject: return -ENOSPC when add_uevent

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:   Fri, 7 Jun 2019 14:26:17 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kobject: return -ENOSPC when add_uevent_var() fails

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 2:02 PM Masahiro Yamada
<yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 5:53 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:00 PM Masahiro Yamada
> > <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > This function never attempts to allocate memory, so returning -ENOMEM
> > > looks weird to me.
> >
> > And why is the "looks weird to me" a good enough reason for making
> > changes like this?
>
>
> Since the code is read much more than written,
> this change eliminates the question of "why -ENOMEM here?"

And you are sure that nobody relies on the current return value?