netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: Improved phy_error() with function and error code

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:   Tue, 21 Mar 2023 21:41:24 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, opendmb@...il.com,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org (open list)
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: Improved phy_error() with function
 and error code

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 14:34:51 -0700 Florian Fainelli wrote:
> +static inline void phy_error(struct phy_device *phydev)
> +{
> +	phy_error_precise(phydev, (const void *)_RET_IP_, -EIO);
> +}

LGTM apart from this _RET_IP_ here. Wouldn't this make @func
sometimes the function that returned the error and sometimes
the caller? The caller is in the stack trace already, so no
need to duplicate. Besides how dependable is using _RET_IP_ 
inside a static inline?