linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v1] mlxbf_gige: emit messages during open and probe failures

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: <20250616191750.GB5000@horms.kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 20:17:50 +0100
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
Cc: David Thompson <davthompson@...dia.com>, andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
	davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
	pabeni@...hat.com, asmaa@...dia.com, u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1] mlxbf_gige: emit messages during open and
 probe failures

On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 04:06:49PM +0200, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 14:57:10 +0100
> 
> > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 05:42:28PM +0000, David Thompson wrote:
> >> The open() and probe() functions of the mlxbf_gige driver
> >> check for errors during initialization, but do not provide
> >> details regarding the errors. The mlxbf_gige driver should
> >> provide error details in the kernel log, noting what step
> >> of initialization failed.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: David Thompson <davthompson@...dia.com>
> > 
> > Hi David,
> > 
> > I do have some reservations about the value of printing
> > out raw err values. But I also see that the logging added
> > by this patch is consistent with existing code in this driver.
> > So in that context I agree this is appropriate.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
> 
> I still think it's better to encourage people to use %pe for printing
> error codes. The already existing messages could be improved later,
> but then at least no new places would sneak in.

Thanks, I agree that is reasonable.
And as a bonus the patch-set could update existing messages.

David, could you consider making this so?