linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] PCI/switchtec: Error out MRPC execution when no GAS access

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <92d64bde77c24048d5ffacdd7dcab4ef20ca1630.camel@microchip.com>
Date:   Sat, 2 Oct 2021 00:05:31 +0000
From:   <Kelvin.Cao@...rochip.com>
To:     <helgaas@...nel.org>, <logang@...tatee.com>
CC:     <kurt.schwemmer@...rosemi.com>, <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        <kelvincao@...look.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] PCI/switchtec: Error out MRPC execution when no GAS
 access

On Fri, 2021-10-01 at 17:52 -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> On 2021-10-01 4:58 p.m., Kelvin.Cao@...rochip.com wrote:
> > On Fri, 2021-10-01 at 15:18 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > Didn't notice this before, but the "check_access()" name is not
> > > very
> > > helpful because it doesn't give a clue about what the return
> > > value
> > > means.  Does 0 mean no error?  Does 1 mean no error?  From
> > > reading
> > > the
> > > implementation, I can see that 0 is actually the error case, but
> > > I
> > > can't tell from the name.
> > 
> > Yes, will improve the naming, like change it to "has_gas_access()"
> > in
> > v2 if a v2 patchset is preferred.
> 
> I'd keep the GAS name out of the kernel. How about something along
> the
> lines of is_firmware_running()? Maybe a comment for the function
> would
> be good as well.
> 
Yes, that'll be an improvement.
> Logan