netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 05/22] ethtool: introduce ethtool netlink interface

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: <20190321152509.GB23408@lunn.ch>
Date:   Thu, 21 Mar 2019 16:25:09 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        John Linville <linville@...driver.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 05/22] ethtool: introduce ethtool netlink
 interface

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 03:13:43PM +0100, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 02:57:05PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 02:07:35PM +0100, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> > > +static int __init ethnl_init(void)
> > > +{
> > > +	int ret;
> > > +
> > > +	ret = genl_register_family(&ethtool_genl_family);
> > > +	if (ret < 0)
> > > +		panic("ethtool: could not register genetlink family\n");
> > 
> > Panic seems a bit strong. Do we really want to kill the box because
> > this fails?
> 
> When I switched CONFIG_ETHTOOL_NETLINK from tristate to bool, I checked
> some other non-modular subsystems to see what they do on failed
> initialization and each of them did handle it by panic() so I didn't
> think about it too much and did the same.
> 
> Thinking about it now, if the family registration fails, the only entry
> point to care about should be ethtool_notify() (I'll have to check more
> carefully to be sure) so that adding a check there should be sufficient
> to let everything work (except for the netlink interface, of course).

Hi Michal

So maybe do a WARN_ON() and return the error code.

Linus has been quite vocal about killing the box when there is no real
need...

	Andrew