netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] checkpatch: warn about uses of ENOTSUPP

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]

Date:   Sun, 10 May 2020 12:22:35 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, benh@...ian.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] checkpatch: warn about uses of ENOTSUPP

On Sun, 10 May 2020 21:04:32 +0200 Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 11:51:48AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > ENOTSUPP often feels like the right error code to use, but it's
> > in fact not a standard Unix error. E.g.:  
> 
> Hi Jakub
> 
> You said ENOTSUPP is for NFS? Would it make sense to special case
> fs/nfs* files and not warn there? I assume that would reduce the number
> of false positives?

That's what Ben Hutchings once said, but I have no proof of that,
actually. The code pre-dates git.

I believe the real test would be "can this error code leak to user
space?" AFAIU those high error codes are for kernel's internal use.
So any code can use them, if done carefully.