linux-kernel - Re: RFC: a failing pm_runtime

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: <20200614140717.heceqlwq75w5if5s@katana>
Date:   Sun, 14 Jun 2020 16:07:17 +0200
From:   Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: a failing pm_runtime_get increases the refcnt?

Hi Geert and Rafael,

> > I've always[*] considered a pm_runtime_get_sync() failure to be fatal
> > (or: cannot happen), and that there's nothing that can be done to
> > recover.  Hence I never checked the function's return value.
> > Was that wrong?
> 
> No, it wasn't.  It is the right thing to do in the majority of cases.

OK, if *not checking* the retval is the major use case, then I
understand that ref counting takes place.

However, that probably means that for most patches I am getting, the
better fix would be to remove the error checking? (I assume most people
put the error check in there to be on the "safe side" without having a
real argument to really do it.)

And thanks for putting more hints to kernel doc! I think this will help
the case a lot.

Kind regards,

   Wolfram

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)