linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 17/20] crypto: qce: Print a failure msg in case probe() fails

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:   Wed, 13 Oct 2021 22:26:20 +0300
From:   Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@...aro.org>
To:     Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     bhupesh.linux@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, agross@...nel.org,
        herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, davem@...emloft.net,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 17/20] crypto: qce: Print a failure msg in case probe()
 fails

Hi Bhupesh,

On 10/13/21 1:55 PM, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
> Print a failure message (dev_err) in case the qcom qce crypto
> driver probe() fails.
> 
> Cc: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
> Reviewed-by: Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@...aro.org>
> ---
>   drivers/crypto/qce/core.c | 2 ++
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c b/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c
> index 576c416461f9..cb8c77709e1e 100644
> --- a/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c
> @@ -281,6 +281,8 @@ static int qce_crypto_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>   	icc_set_bw(qce->mem_path, 0, 0);
>   err_mem_path_put:
>   	icc_put(qce->mem_path);
> +
> +	dev_err(dev, "%s failed : %d\n", __func__, ret);
>   	return ret;
>   }
>   

As for me the rationale of this change is quite non-obvious, a user is well
informed, if a driver probe fails. I would rather ask you to consider to
drop this change.

--
Best wishes,
Vladimir