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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Ytgakkh8hcrbidoY@nanopsycho> Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 17:09:06 +0200 From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> To: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, petrm@...dia.com, pabeni@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, mlxsw@...dia.com, saeedm@...dia.com, snelson@...sando.io Subject: Re: [patch net-next v2 05/12] mlxsw: core_linecards: Expose HW revision and INI version Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 05:01:12PM CEST, idosch@...dia.com wrote: >On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 04:59:03PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 02:43:17PM CEST, idosch@...dia.com wrote: >> >On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 02:27:40PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >> Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 10:56:35AM CEST, idosch@...dia.com wrote: >> >> >On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 08:48:40AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >> >> +int mlxsw_linecard_devlink_info_get(struct mlxsw_linecard *linecard, >> >> >> + struct devlink_info_req *req, >> >> >> + struct netlink_ext_ack *extack) >> >> >> +{ >> >> >> + char buf[32]; >> >> >> + int err; >> >> >> + >> >> >> + mutex_lock(&linecard->lock); >> >> >> + if (WARN_ON(!linecard->provisioned)) { >> >> >> + err = 0; >> >> > >> >> >Why not: >> >> > >> >> >err = -EINVAL; >> >> > >> >> >? >> >> >> >> Well, a) this should not happen. No need to push error to the user for >> >> this as the rest of the info message is still fine. >> > >> >Not sure what you mean by "the rest of the info message is still fine". >> >Which info message? If the line card is not provisioned, then it >> >shouldn't even have a devlink instance and it will not appear in >> >"devlink dev info" dump. >> > >> >I still do not understand why this error is severe enough to print a >> >WARNING to the kernel log, but not emit an error code to user space. >> >> As I wrote, WARN_ON was a leftover. > >It was a leftover in patch #10 where you checked '!linecard->ready'. >Here I think it's actually correct because it shouldn't happen unless >I'm missing something Correct, I confused myself :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists