linux-kernel - Re: [patch 01/39] PCI/MSI: Check for MSI enabled in __pci_msix

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: <Y3Y+a/s/lq0sd2Ej@a4bf019067fa.jf.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Nov 2022 06:00:11 -0800
From:   Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <x86@...nel.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "Lorenzo Pieralisi" <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
        Jon Mason <jdmason@...zu.us>, Allen Hubbe <allenbh@...il.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        "Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwi@...utronix.de>,
        Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 01/39] PCI/MSI: Check for MSI enabled in
 __pci_msix_enable()

On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 02:07:33PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16 2022 at 07:39, Ashok Raj wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 02:54:15PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > Can the pre-enabled checks for msi and msix be moved up before any vector
> > range check?
> >
> > not that it matters for how it fails, does EBUSY sound better?
> 
> Does any caller care about the error code or about the ordering in which
> the caller stupity is detected?

No, I don't think so. That's why I prefixed it with "not that it matters" :-)

Just thought it would be good hygiene, but doesn't change anything functionally.