linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] clk: Don't cache errors from clk_ops::get

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 07 Jan 2020 10:44:32 +0100
From:   Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Cc:     Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: Don't cache errors from clk_ops::get_phase()


On Sun 05 Jan 2020 at 08:55, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org> wrote:

> Quoting Stephen Boyd (2020-01-04 23:50:49)
>> 
>> Quoting Jerome Brunet (2019-10-02 01:31:46)
>> > >
>> > > +     clk_core_get_phase(core);
>> > 
>> > Should the error be checked here as well ?
>> 
>> What error?
>> 
>
> Ah the error when clk_ops::get_phase() returns an error? I guess we
> should just silently ignore it to maintain the previous behavior?

Indeed, that's the previous behavior so we can keep it.
I'm just not a fan of silently ignoring errors. These choices tend to
come back to haunt us ...

> Or we
> can bail out of clk registration. Seems low risk to do that in another
> patch.

Why not, or at least a warning so we get a hint that something is wrong.