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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 14:56:57 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> To: "Saheed O. Bolarinwa" <refactormyself@...il.com> Cc: helgaas@...nel.org, Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>, Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, bjorn@...gaas.com, skhan@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-atm-general@...ts.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] Drop uses of pci_read_config_*() return value On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 01:24:29PM +0200, Saheed O. Bolarinwa wrote: > The return value of pci_read_config_*() may not indicate a device error. > However, the value read by these functions is more likely to indicate > this kind of error. This presents two overlapping ways of reporting > errors and complicates error checking. So why isn't the *value check done in the pci_read_config_* functions instead of touching gazillion callers? For example, pci_conf{1,2}_read() could check whether the u32 *value it just read depending on the access method, whether that value is ~0 and return proper PCIBIOS_ error in that case. The check you're replicating if (val32 == (u32)~0) everywhere, instead, is just ugly and tests a naked value ~0 which doesn't mean anything... -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists