linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tools/iio: iio_event

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]

Message-ID: <CA+U=DsqUmzcpDrzBi7smucLt6X+qRMXxV18D5+0KNXqGzeCGXw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 May 2021 17:35:17 +0300
From:   Alexandru Ardelean <ardeleanalex@...il.com>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        "Sa, Nuno" <Nuno.Sa@...log.com>,
        Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
        "linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/iio: iio_event_monitor: Fix ioctl error check

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 5:31 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 1:05 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > So, I did a bit of detective work on this one.  Seems this change in error
> > code was actually introduced as a side effect of Alex's recent rework of
> > the IOCTLs.  Prior to that we returned -ENODEV for this case and now
> > we do indeed return EINVAL.
> >
> > So we may need to figure out how to fix that, or decide that such is life
> > and modify this code to give the right error message as done in this patch...
> >
> > Linus / Alex, thoughts?  It's always been a bit messy because we also
> > return -ENODEV in the path where the ioctl hits a driver that is going away
> > so it hasn't uniquely identified a lack of support for a long time, even
> > if that is by far the most likely reason for this return code.
>
> Normally this would be ABI if any existing userspace can break because
> of the wrong error code being returned. Linus (the other one) has
> clearly stated that the ABI is a contract that cannot be broken.
>
> So I would just try to fix the errorpath to go back to returning -ENODEV.

Same from my side.
I was just looking through the code now.

Will send a patch.
Sorry for the breakage.

>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij