linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/8] pstore: Improve error reporting in case of backend overlap

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, 6 Oct 2022 20:35:27 -0300
From:   "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-dev@...lia.com, kernel@...ccoli.net, anton@...msg.org,
        ccross@...roid.com, tony.luck@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] pstore: Improve error reporting in case of backend
 overlap



On 06/10/2022 20:27, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 07:42:05PM -0300, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
>> The pstore infrastructure supports one single backend at a time;
>> trying to load a another backend causes an error and displays a
>> message, introduced on commit 0d7cd09a3dbb ("pstore: Improve
>> register_pstore() error reporting").
>>
>> Happens that this message is not really clear about the situation,
>> also the current error returned (-EPERM) isn't accurate, whereas
>> -EBUSY makes more sense. We have another place in the code that
>> relies in the -EBUSY return for a similar check.
>>
>> So, make it consistent here by returning -EBUSY and using a
>> similar message in both scenarios.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Guilherme G. Piccoli <gpiccoli@...lia.com>
>> ---
>>  fs/pstore/platform.c | 5 +++--
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/pstore/platform.c b/fs/pstore/platform.c
>> index 0c034ea39954..c32957e4b256 100644
>> --- a/fs/pstore/platform.c
>> +++ b/fs/pstore/platform.c
>> @@ -562,8 +562,9 @@ static int pstore_write_user_compat(struct pstore_record *record,
>>  int pstore_register(struct pstore_info *psi)
>>  {
>>  	if (backend && strcmp(backend, psi->name)) {
>> -		pr_warn("ignoring unexpected backend '%s'\n", psi->name);
>> -		return -EPERM;
>> +		pr_warn("backend '%s' already in use: ignoring '%s'\n",
>> +			backend, psi->name);
>> +		return -EBUSY;
> 
> Thank you! Yes, this has bothered me for a while. :)

Heheh ditto! Thank you for the great and fast review =)