netdev - Re: [RFC net-next 05/10] devlink: remove the registration guarantee of references

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:   Mon, 19 Dec 2022 14:02:10 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
Cc:     <jiri@...nulli.us>, <leon@...nel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 05/10] devlink: remove the registration guarantee
 of references

On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 09:56:26 -0800 Jacob Keller wrote:
> > -void devlink_register(struct devlink *devlink)
> > +int devl_register(struct devlink *devlink)
> >  {
> >  	ASSERT_DEVLINK_NOT_REGISTERED(devlink);
> > -	/* Make sure that we are in .probe() routine */
> > +	devl_assert_locked(devlink);
> >  
> >  	xa_set_mark(&devlinks, devlink->index, DEVLINK_REGISTERED);
> >  	devlink_notify_register(devlink);
> > +
> > +	return 0;  
> 
> Any particular reason to change this to int when it doesn't have a
> failure case yet? Future patches I assume? You don't check the
> devl_register return value.

I was wondering if anyone would notice :)

Returning errors from the registration helper seems natural,
and if we don't have this ability it may impact our ability
to extend the core in the long run.
I was against making core functions void in the first place.
It's a good opportunity to change back.