linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] staging: vchiq: Refactor vchiq cdev code

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: <20210621082132.GC1901@kadam>
Date:   Mon, 21 Jun 2021 11:21:32 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin98@...il.com>
Cc:     nsaenz@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        stefan.wahren@...e.com, arnd@...db.de, phil@...pberrypi.com,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] staging: vchiq: Refactor vchiq cdev code

On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 06:25:46PM +0530, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote:
>  	vchiq_debugfs_init();
>  
>  	vchiq_log_info(vchiq_arm_log_level,
> -		"vchiq: initialised - version %d (min %d), device %d.%d",
> -		VCHIQ_VERSION, VCHIQ_VERSION_MIN,
> -		MAJOR(vchiq_devid), MINOR(vchiq_devid));
> +		       "vchiq: platform initialised - version %d (min %d)",
> +		       VCHIQ_VERSION, VCHIQ_VERSION_MIN);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * We don't handle error here since the function handles
> +	 * cleanup in cases of failure. Further, we can proceed
> +	 * even if this function fails.
> +	 */
> +	vchiq_register_chrdev(&pdev->dev);

I feel like ignoring errors and just continuing seems helpful, but it's
actually doing the users a disservice.  If it's an error during, boot
that's different, in that case it's better to get some kind of minimally
useful boot so the user can debug the problem.  But if the error isn't
going to prevent the system from booting then it's better to just return
an error so they can fix the problem and try again.

regards,
dan carpenter