linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 06/11] dma-direct: Support PCI P2PDMA pages in dma-direct map

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: <20210316075821.GB15949@lst.de>
Date:   Tue, 16 Mar 2021 08:58:21 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
Cc:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Minturn Dave B <dave.b.minturn@...el.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Jason Ekstrand <jason@...kstrand.net>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Stephen Bates <sbates@...thlin.com>,
        Jakowski Andrzej <andrzej.jakowski@...el.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Xiong Jianxin <jianxin.xiong@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 06/11] dma-direct: Support PCI P2PDMA pages in
 dma-direct map_sg

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 11:27:46AM -0700, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> So then we reject the patches that make that change. Seems like an odd
> argument to say that we can't do something that won't cause problems
> because someone might use it as an example and do something that will
> cause problems. Reject the change that causes the problem.

No, the problem is a mess of calling conventions.  A calling convention
returning 0 for error, positive values for success is fine.  One returning
a negative errno for error and positive values for success is fine a well.
One returning 0 for the usual errors and negativ errnos for an unusual
corner case is just a complete mess.