linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] gpio: uapi: documentation improvements

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: <CAHp75VcdE-DfoSLOYyg5RdouBCs1QJ3AO6Ru49P_84-vTKi4DA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2024 16:30:19 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, brgl@...ev.pl, linus.walleij@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] gpio: uapi: documentation improvements

On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 4:20 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 04:10:54PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 10:02:16PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> > > This is a series of minor clarifications and formatting tidy ups for
> > > the GPIO uAPI kernel doc.
> > >
> > > The series is intended as a companion to my character device
> > > uAPI documentation series, but makes sense on its own too.
> > >
> > > The patches are self contained and trivial so not much to add here.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>
> >
> > for patches starting from the second one.
> >
> > The first one I personally don't understand why, but I'm not a native speaker!
> > I believe, it's correct, although the original version seems okay to me.
>
> The problem isn't the language, unless you mean I'm explaining poorly, it
> is the logic.  The original says "zero or negative value means error", but
> in case of an error the kernel does not actually set the fd.  So if the
> user sends a request containing a positive fd they might incorrectly infer
> that the positive fd being returned implies success.
>
> The new wording is that the returned fd is only valid on success.

Ah, thanks for elaboration, now I understand the issue. Okay, feel
free to extend the Rb to the first patch.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko