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]

Message-ID: <20210329104649.6e2ca6c7@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Mar 2021 10:46:49 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
        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, 29 Mar 2021 18:25:46 +0300 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 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?

Agreed, weaving into the message that ENOTSUPP is okay internally
sounds good. Perhaps we should append "if error may be returned to 
user space"?