linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] software node: replace -EEXIST with -EBUSY

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: <2025122203-purely-huntsman-7987@gregkh>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2025 09:19:42 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@...nel.org>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
	Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
	Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
	Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
	Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@...e.com>,
	Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
	Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...mlin.com>,
	Lucas De Marchi <demarchi@...nel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-modules@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] software node: replace -EEXIST with -EBUSY

On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 04:55:00AM +0100, Daniel Gomez wrote:
> From: Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@...sung.com>
> 
> The -EEXIST error code is reserved by the module loading infrastructure
> to indicate that a module is already loaded. When a module's init
> function returns -EEXIST, userspace tools like kmod interpret this as
> "module already loaded" and treat the operation as successful, returning
> 0 to the user even though the module initialization actually failed.
> 
> This follows the precedent set by commit 54416fd76770 ("netfilter:
> conntrack: helper: Replace -EEXIST by -EBUSY") which fixed the same
> issue in nf_conntrack_helper_register().
> 
> Affected modules:
>   * meraki_mx100 pcengines_apuv2
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@...sung.com>
> ---
> The error code -EEXIST is reserved by the kernel module loader to
> indicate that a module with the same name is already loaded. When a
> module's init function returns -EEXIST, kmod interprets this as "module
> already loaded" and reports success instead of failure [1].
> 
> The kernel module loader will include a safety net that provides -EEXIST
> to -EBUSY with a warning [2], and a documentation patch has been sent to
> prevent future occurrences [3].
> 
> These affected code paths were identified using a static analysis tool
> [4] that traces -EEXIST returns to module_init(). The tool was developed
> with AI assistance and all findings were manually validated.
> 
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/aKEVQhJpRdiZSliu@orbyte.nwl.cc/ [1]
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251013-module-warn-ret-v1-0-ab65b41af01f@intel.com/ [2]
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251218-dev-module-init-eexists-modules-docs-v1-0-361569aa782a@samsung.com/ [3]
> Link: https://gitlab.com/-/snippets/4913469 [4]
> ---
>  drivers/base/swnode.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/base/swnode.c b/drivers/base/swnode.c
> index 16a8301c25d6..083593d99a18 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/swnode.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/swnode.c
> @@ -919,7 +919,7 @@ int software_node_register(const struct software_node *node)
>  	struct swnode *parent = software_node_to_swnode(node->parent);
>  
>  	if (software_node_to_swnode(node))
> -		return -EEXIST;
> +		return -EBUSY;

While I understand the want for the module loader to be returning
-EBUSY, that doesn't really make sense down here in this layer of the
kernel.

So why doesn't the module loader turn -EEXIST return values into -EBUSY
if it wishes to pass that value on to userspace?  Otherwise you are
going to be constantly playing "whack-a-mole" here and have really
set things up so that NO api can ever return EEXIST as an error value in
the future.

thanks,

greg k-h