linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] ACPI: APEI: EINJ: warn on invalid argument when explicitly indicated by platform

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: <SJ1PR11MB60831F4A66DB77095B4314FDFC809@SJ1PR11MB6083.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Mar 2023 16:32:35 +0000
From:   "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:     Shuai Xue <xueshuai@...ux.alibaba.com>
CC:     "baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com" <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        "benjamin.cheatham@....com" <benjamin.cheatham@....com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "james.morse@....com" <james.morse@....com>,
        "jaylu102@....com" <jaylu102@....com>,
        "lenb@...nel.org" <lenb@...nel.org>,
        "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "rafael@...nel.org" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        "zhuo.song@...ux.alibaba.com" <zhuo.song@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] ACPI: APEI: EINJ: warn on invalid argument when
 explicitly indicated by platform

>> I don't see how reporting -EBUSY for the "Unknown Failure" case is
>> actually better.
>
> Tony, did you misunderstand this patch?
>
> The original code report -EBUSY for both "Unknown Failure" and
> "Invalid Access" cases.

I mixed up what was already in the kernel with what the patch was changing.

> This patch intends to report -EINVAL for "Invalid Access" case
> and keeps reporting -EBUSY for "Unknown Failure" case unchanged.
> Although -EBUSY for "Unknown Failure" case is not a good choice.
> Will -EIO for "Unknown failure" case be better?

Is this for some real use case?

Do you have a BIOS EINJ implementation that is returning these different codes?

What will the user do differently if they see these different error strings?

  # echo 1 > error_inject
  ... different error messages here ...

-Tony