linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] IB: mlx5: 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: <20191104210844.GB2460177@kroah.com>
Date:   Mon, 4 Nov 2019 22:08:44 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB: mlx5: no need to check return value of
 debugfs_create functions

On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 04:59:14PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 08:41:41AM +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: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
> > Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> >  drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c    | 62 +++++++---------------------
> >  drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h |  9 +---
> >  2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Note, I kind of need to take this through my tree now as I broke the
> > build due to me changing the use of debugfs_create_atomic_t() in my
> > tree and not noticing this being used here.  Sorry about that, any
> > objections?
> 
> I think it is fine, I don't forsee conflicts here at this point.

Thanks!

> To be clear, the build is broken in your tree and in linux-next?

Yeah, my fault :(

> > And 0-day seems really broken to have missed this for the past months,
> > ugh, I need to stop relying on it...
> 
> Yes, I've noticed it missing a lot of stuff now too. Not sure why

It is very hit-or-miss these days :(

thanks,

greg k-h