linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] soc: qcom: pbs: Simplify with dev_err

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <42cfe883-5411-4948-b36d-c0c3dd3d1294@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 14:35:50 +0200
From: Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
 Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, Yu Jiaoliang
 <yujiaoliang@...o.com>, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
 linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 opensource.kernel@...o.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] soc: qcom: pbs: Simplify with dev_err_probe()

On 4.09.2024 8:55 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 05:31:14PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>
>>> There are a few things which we could do:
>>>
>>> 1) Returning -EPROBE_DEFER to an ioctl or something besides a probe()
>>>    This is a bug right?  -EPROBE_DEFER is basically kernel internal for probe()
>>>    functions.  It tried to write this but it was complicated so I gave up.
>>
>> Maybe call_tree.pl can somehow be used with an if name[-5:] == "probe"
>> or something along those lines..
>>
> 
> I wrote the call_tree.pl script before I had the database.  These days I tend to
> use the database instead.
> 
> I've implemented this check but it only looks at ioctls.  I'll test it tonight.
> 
>>>
>>> 2) Printing an error message for -EPROBE_DEFER warnings
>>>    I've written this check and I can test it tonight.
>>>
> 
> I've done this.  See the attached check and the dont_print.list file attached.
> The line numbers are based on linux next.  The false positives from here are
> pretty harmless because calling dev_err_probe() is fine.
> 
>>> 3) Not propagating the -EPROBE_DEFER returns
>>>    This shouldn't be too hard to write.
>>>
> 
> I've done this too.  The false positives from this could be bad, because we only
> want to propagate -EPROBE_DEFER back from probe() functions.
> 
> See propagate.list.

This is great work, thank you Dan!

Konrad