linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 09/16] platform/x86/intel/pmc: Allow pmc_core_ssram

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: <7f2fd7a054912960c6599e4a62e2095d1567aab8.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:52:16 -0700
From:   "David E. Box" <david.e.box@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, rajvi.jingar@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 09/16] platform/x86/intel/pmc: Allow
 pmc_core_ssram_init to fail

On Thu, 2023-10-12 at 18:01 +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2023, David E. Box wrote:
> 
> > Currently, if the PMC SSRAM initialization fails, no error is returned and
> > the only indication is that a PMC device has not been created.  Instead,
> > allow an error to be returned and handled directly by the caller.
> 
> You might have a good reason for it but why isn't the call into 
> pmc_core_pmc_add() changed in this patch to take the error value into 
> account?

Good catch. The return value of pmc_core_pmc_add() is first used in the next
patch but should be used here.

David

> 
> (I vaguely remember this was probably discussed in the context of some 
> earlier patch touching this area that it was about the other code dealing 
> with NULLs or something like that).