Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/resctrl: Fix rdt_find_domain() return value checks
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     tglx@linutronix.de, fenghua.yu@intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com,
        jithu.joseph@intel.com, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <d932648504b745cb51c4a440710c7a1ca9830eca.1543427858.git.reinette.chatre@intel.com>
 <20181210191311.GC5482@zn.tnic>
From:   Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
Message-ID: <40422756-cef4-38b1-8554-c99e7bcb7765@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Dec 2018 12:42:14 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20181210191311.GC5482@zn.tnic>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Boris,

On 12/10/2018 11:13 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:20:27AM -0800, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> rdt_find_domain() may return an ERR_PTR(), NULL, or a pointer to struct
>> rdt_domain. It is thus required that the return value be checked for the
>> possibility of an ERR_PTR as well as NULL.
> 
> Well, it returns ERR_PTR(id) but code which uses ERR_PTR passes in an -E
> value, for example ERR_PTR(-EINVAL) or so, and not an id.
> 
> And that might work now if id fits within that MAX_ERRNO range - I'm
> looking at include/linux/err.h - but that's still fragile.
> 

Thank you for catching this.

It does seem as though things work at this time since rdt_find_domain()
contains:

if (id < 0)
        return ERR_PTR(id);

and from what I can tell the only possible negative value of id is -1.

As you note, this is fragile. Additionally the error, if intending to
use -E values, does not reflect the error (since -1 would mean EPERM).

Would you be ok if the above is changed to

if (id < 0)
        return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);

as part of this patch?

Looking at rdtgroup_mondata_show() is does seem as though ENOENT is the
actual intended error value, although ENODEV could perhaps also be
considered since such a result reflects that a particular cache instance
could not be found.

Thank you!

Reinette