linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] asus-wmi: Add dgpu disable method

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:   Thu, 08 Jul 2021 17:09:40 +0000
From:   Barnabás Pőcze <pobrn@...tonmail.com>
To:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Luke D. Jones" <luke@...nes.dev>, corentin.chary@...il.com,
        mgross@...ux.intel.com, jdelvare@...e.com, linux@...ck-us.net,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] asus-wmi: Add dgpu disable method

Hi


2021. július 6., kedd 12:17 keltezéssel, Hans de Goede írta:

> [...]
> >> @@ -2699,6 +2792,10 @@ static int asus_wmi_add(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>  	if (err)
> >>  		goto fail_platform;
> >>
> >> +	err = dgpu_disable_check_present(asus);
> >> +	if (err)
> >> +		goto fail_dgpu_disable;
> >> +
> >
> > Should this really be considered a "fatal" error?
>
> Well dgpu_disable_check_present() does already contain:
>
> 		if (err == -ENODEV)
> 			return 0;
>
> IOW it only returns an error on unexpected errors and asus_wmi_add()
> already contains a couple of other foo_present() checks which are
> dealt with in the same way, so this is consistent with that and
> being consistent is good, so I think this is fine.
>

Indeed, that's right, I missed that. I am still unsure whether any error
should cause it to fail to load. But I guess if there is precedent for that
in the module, then consistency is probably better.


Regards,
Barnabás Pőcze