linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] gpiolib: Allow drivers to return EOPNOTSUPP from config

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:   Mon, 29 Mar 2021 18:25:46 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] gpiolib: Allow drivers to return EOPNOTSUPP from
 config

On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 08:08:52AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-03-29 at 14:59 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 2:43 PM Matti Vaittinen
> > <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > The checkpacth instructs to switch from ENOSUPP to EOPNOTSUPP.
> > > > WARNING: ENOTSUPP is not a SUSV4 error code, prefer EOPNOTSUPP
> > > 
> > > Make the gpiolib allow drivers to return both so driver developers
> > > can avoid one of the checkpatch complaints.
> > 
> > Internally we are fine to use the ENOTSUPP.
> > Checkpatch false positives there.
> > 
> > I doubt we need this change. Rather checkpatch should rephrase this to
> > point out that this is only applicable to _user-visible_ error path.
> > Cc'ed Joe.
> 
> Adding CC for Jakub Kicinski who added that particular rule/test.
> 
> And the output message report of the rule is merely a suggestion indicating
> a preference.  It's always up to an individual to accept/reject.
> 
> At best, perhaps wordsmithing the checkpatch message might be an OK option.

Thanks, Joe!

Jakub, what do you think?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko