netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/3] module: Fix up module

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: <20190625074214.GR3436@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 25 Jun 2019 09:42:14 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
Cc:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, jikos@...nel.org,
        mbenes@...e.cz, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
        rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        paulmck <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Joel Fernandes, Google" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        oprofile-list@...ts.sf.net, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] module: Fix up module_notifier return values.

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 04:58:10PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Hi -
> 
> > > While auditing all module notifiers I noticed a whole bunch of fail
> > > wrt the return value. Notifiers have a 'special' return semantics.
> 
> From peterz's comments, the patches, it's not obvious to me how one is
> to choose between 0 (NOTIFY_DONE) and 1 (NOTIFY_OK) in the case of a
> routine success.

I'm not sure either; what I think I choice was:

 - if I want to completely ignore the callback, use DONE (per the
   "Don't care" comment).

 - if we finished the notifier without error, use OK or
   notifier_from_errno(0).

But yes, its a bit of a shit interface.