linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 12/13] block: make __register

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: <YYLA9g0cYBsEFZkm@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Wed, 3 Nov 2021 10:03:50 -0700
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     axboe@...nel.dk, penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp,
        dan.j.williams@...el.com, vishal.l.verma@...el.com,
        dave.jiang@...el.com, ira.weiny@...el.com, richard@....at,
        miquel.raynal@...tlin.com, vigneshr@...com, efremov@...ux.com,
        song@...nel.org, martin.petersen@...cle.com, hare@...e.de,
        jack@...e.cz, ming.lei@...hat.com, tj@...nel.org,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/13] block: make __register_blkdev() return an error

On Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 06:00:49PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 09:44:53AM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > Here's the thing, prober call a form of add_disk(), and so do we want
> > to always ignore the errors on probe? If so we should document why that
> > is sane then. I think this approach is a bit more sane though.
> 
> I suspect the right thing is to just kill of ->probe.
> 
> The only thing it supports is pre-devtmpfs, pre-udev semantics that
> want to magically create disks when their pre-created device node
> is accesses.

That sounds like a possible userspace impact? And so not for v5.16 for
sure.

> But if we don't remove it, yes I think not reporting
> the error is best.  Just clean up whatever local resources were set
> up in the ->probe method and let the open fail without the need of
> passing on the actual error.

Alright, I'll do that and send a final v3 for the last 2 patches.

  Luis