linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PM: wakeup: Add a missing return case in init

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: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:29:36 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@...com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, theo.lebrun@...tlin.com, 
	Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@...cinc.com>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, 
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: wakeup: Add a missing return case in init_wakeup

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 4:18 PM Dhruva Gole <d-gole@...com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mar 14, 2024 at 15:01:36 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 8:55 AM Dhruva Gole <d-gole@...com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The device_wakeup_disable call can return an error if no dev exists
> > > however this was being ignored. Catch this return value and propagate it
> > > onward in device_init_wakeup.
> >
> > Why does this matter to the callers of device_init_wakeup()?
>
> If atall !dev->power.can_wakeup then the caller should know something is
> funny right?

What would the caller do with this information?

They attempted to disable wakeup on a device that doesn't exist or is
not wake-capable, and so what?