linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] KVM: selftests: Add helper macros for ioctl()s that return file descriptors

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:   Fri, 04 Aug 2023 17:57:57 +0000
From:   Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@...gle.com>
To:     Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>
Cc:     seanjc@...gle.com, maz@...nel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mhal@...x.co
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] KVM: selftests: Add helper macros for ioctl()s that
 return file descriptors

Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev> writes:

> Hi Sean,

> On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 05:42:24PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> Add KVM, VM, and vCPU scoped helpers for ioctl()s that return file
>> descriptors, i.e. deduplicate code for asserting success on ioctls() for
>> which a positive return value, not just zero, is considered success.

>> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>

> I appreciate the desire to eliminate duplicate code, but I think the
> naming just muddies the waters. TBH, when I first read the diff w/o the
> changelog, I thought you were describing the input fd (i.e. 'kvm_fd',
> 'vm_fd', 'vcpu_fd'). I don't think explicitly spelling out the condition
> each time (i.e. ret >= 0) is all that difficult.

Couldn't ret >= 0 be the assert condition for everything? Don't see why
there needs to be different helpers to check == 0 and >= 0.

Unless I'm missing something, error returns are only ever negative.