Re: [KJ] audit return code handling for kernel_thread [2/11]

[Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>]

On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 10:37:04AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 04:07:13PM -0400, nhorman@tuxdriver.com wrote:
> > Audit/Cleanup of kernel_thread calls, specifically checking of return codes.
> >     Problems seemed to fall into 3 main categories:
> >     
> >     1) callers of kernel_thread were inconsistent about meaning of a zero return
> >     code.  Some callers considered a zero return code to mean success, others took
> >     it to mean failure.  a zero return code, while not actually possible in the
> >     current implementation, should be considered a success (pid 0 is/should be
> >     valid). fixed all callers to treat zero return as success
> >     
> >     2) caller of kernel_thread saved return code of kernel_thread for later use
> >     without ever checking its value.  Callers who did this tended to assume a
> >     non-zero return was success, and would often wait for a completion queue to be
> >     woken up, implying that an error (negative return code) from kernel_thread could
> >     lead to deadlock.  Repaired by checking return code at call time, and setting
> >     saved return code to zero in the event of an error.
> 
> This is inconsistent with your assertion that pid 0 "is/should be valid"
> above.  If you want '0' to mean "not valid" then it's not a valid return
> value from kernel_thread() (and arguably that's true, since pid 0 is
> permanently allocated to the idle thread.)
> 
I think you misread.  I want a return code of zero to be valid (and imply
success).  However, kernel_thread returns an int (not an unsigned int), and
there are/were callers who assumed that _any_ non-zero return values were
success, including negative return values, which indicate a failure in
kernel_thread.

> I don't particularly care whether you decide to that returning pid 0 from
> kernel_thread is valid or not, just that your two points above are at least
> consistent with each other.
> 
I should have been more clear above, point two is meant to indicate that there
were callers of kernel_thread which assume a negative return code from
kernel_thread meant success.  That is what I fixed.

Regards
Neil

> -- 
> Russell King
>  Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
>  maintainer of:  2.6 Serial core
_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors