Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 8 Nov 2021 09:17:03 -0500
From:   Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Ayush Sawal <ayush.sawal@chelsio.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Rohit Maheshwari <rohitm@chelsio.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Vinay Kumar Yadav <vinay.yadav@chelsio.com>,
        alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com,
        intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
        intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-leds@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-um@lists.infradead.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, rcu@vger.kernel.org,
        sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v0 00/42] notifiers: Return an error when callback is
 already registered
Message-ID: <20211108141703.GB1666297@rowland.harvard.edu>
References: <20211108101157.15189-1-bp@alien8.de>
 <20211108101924.15759-1-bp@alien8.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20211108101924.15759-1-bp@alien8.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 11:19:24AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> From: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> this is a huge patchset for something which is really trivial - it
> changes the notifier registration routines to return an error value
> if a notifier callback is already present on the respective list of
> callbacks. For more details scroll to the last patch.
> 
> Everything before it is converting the callers to check the return value
> of the registration routines and issue a warning, instead of the WARN()
> notifier_chain_register() does now.

What reason is there for moving the check into the callers?  It seems 
like pointless churn.  Why not add the error return code, change the 
WARN to pr_warn, and leave the callers as they are?  Wouldn't that end 
up having exactly the same effect?

For that matter, what sort of remedial action can a caller take if the 
return code is -EEXIST?  Is there any point in forcing callers to check 
the return code if they can't do anything about it?

> Before the last patch has been applied, though, that checking is a
> NOP which would make the application of those patches trivial - every
> maintainer can pick a patch at her/his discretion - only the last one
> enables the build warnings and that one will be queued only after the
> preceding patches have all been merged so that there are no build
> warnings.

Why should there be _any_ build warnings?  The real problem occurs when 
a notifier callback is added twice, not when a caller fails to check the 
return code.  Double-registration is not the sort of thing that can be 
detected at build time.

Alan Stern

> Due to the sheer volume of the patches, I have addressed the respective
> patch and the last one, which enables the warning, with addressees for
> each maintained area so as not to spam people unnecessarily.
> 
> If people prefer I carry some through tip, instead, I'll gladly do so -
> your call.
> 
> And, if you think the warning messages need to be more precise, feel
> free to adjust them before committing.
> 
> Thanks!