netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 13/17] mvpp2: no need to check return value of debugfs

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: <20190812195125.GA22367@kroah.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Aug 2019 21:51:25 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>,
        Nathan Huckleberry <nhuck@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 13/17] mvpp2: no need to check return value of
 debugfs_create functions

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 12:44:36PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 12:01 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 10:55:51AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 3:17 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > > <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > When calling debugfs functions, there is no need to ever check the
> > > > return value.  The function can work or not, but the code logic should
> > > > never do something different based on this.
> > >
> > > Maybe adding this recommendation to the comment block above the
> > > definition of debugfs_create_dir() in fs/debugfs/inode.c would help
> > > prevent this issue in the future?  What failure means, and how to
> > > proceed can be tricky; more documentation can only help in this
> > > regard.
> >
> > If it was there, would you have read it?  :)
> 
> Absolutely; I went looking for it, which is why I haven't added my
> reviewed by tag, because it's not clear from the existing comment
> block how callers should handle the return value, particularly as you
> describe in this commit's commit message.

Ok, fair enough, I'll update the documentation soon, thanks.

greg k-h