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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 15:11:51 +0800 From: "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com> To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] genirq/timings: Fix error return code in irq_timings_test_irqs() On 2021/8/10 21:33, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Sat, May 08 2021 at 14:20, Zhen Lei wrote: >> Fix to return a negative error code from the error handling case instead >> of 0, as done elsewhere in this function. > > Returning an error code is fine, but > >> >> __irq_timings_store(irq, irqs, ti->intervals[i]); >> if (irqs->circ_timings[i & IRQ_TIMINGS_MASK] != index) { >> + ret = -EFAULT; > > EFAULT is really not appropriate here. EFAULT is used for mapping > faults. ENOSPC or EBADSLT perhaps? EBADSLT will be better, the cyclic buffer can not be "no space". > >> pr_err("Failed to store in the circular buffer\n"); >> goto out; >> } >> } >> >> if (irqs->count != ti->count) { >> + ret = -EFAULT; > > ERANGE? Looks better than EFAULT. Thank you for your suggestion, I will send v2. > > Thanks, > > tglx > . >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists