From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.223.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C448A4218B6 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2026 13:26:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.130 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783344399; cv=none; b=mRPRgwok4fVa/e6XB0w0W9JbgM4/ZAECilJPj52ZU4De4rH7O+ZODi4Y9JAoZ22SD7hG50SnuN4ZYppYInvXc/J8lRTCQ6/+FodnSqR3nG8nadLJSAfhPLsiJlt+J5CqCzCg0QSLqDbh6/iycLDgo33aU3XrEL1KaYN/BT5ywVs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783344399; c=relaxed/simple; bh=tFbGF4l9CkBOrH75aI4ANYiJs5RYc9eYCYmocFqnURQ=; h=Date:Message-ID:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=DROxFCbxnCtJ2rv6aSUN+lZ4Ohb9SnuSxsvl3HJQv8pSd4XyRr6wve7IgQMHejS1hlrjEpevGTaUBsie9IrbdLW0k/uqol65I+G8NT628L7L0QqcX86VIDVjOHMqARonUBtqEKMHgHdIU5ImHrCm7BJ3Lcl/7hVCGejpluZnkn4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.de; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.de header.i=@suse.de header.b=ZWUU7ze3; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.de header.i=@suse.de header.b=zwrEMc58; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.de header.i=@suse.de header.b=ZWUU7ze3; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.de header.i=@suse.de header.b=zwrEMc58; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.130 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.de header.i=@suse.de header.b="ZWUU7ze3"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.de header.i=@suse.de header.b="zwrEMc58"; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.de header.i=@suse.de header.b="ZWUU7ze3"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.de header.i=@suse.de header.b="zwrEMc58" Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (unknown [10.150.64.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4505C75786; Mon, 6 Jul 2026 13:26:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1783344394; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Z0p4RX+eaUBEmcOc3ua1tOf/FIeNF/0ytgVmxaYGatk=; b=ZWUU7ze3r3hWI0snx9d9dBxDYvEv54oKoGxi8bT/3eZOGFYfSCNKwy5r3G1KFrMzd/ruiE QiE7+9+IDHVe23OmYNLlX6/5jWgA2tBeK+OClAUGSeP63PE8bxNlxgDAckm5luan1btrJ7 gdIM+uawHJ+m0tcrG2OQM0lyZtm/ceg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1783344394; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Z0p4RX+eaUBEmcOc3ua1tOf/FIeNF/0ytgVmxaYGatk=; b=zwrEMc58ZBQ7sY04w/Eu4wBBrWmHumfKpmKScV5SnCiGmZ+dgWDovepKb6D1I5knrstO14 CwXfeTiUAmHEhGBw== Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1783344394; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Z0p4RX+eaUBEmcOc3ua1tOf/FIeNF/0ytgVmxaYGatk=; b=ZWUU7ze3r3hWI0snx9d9dBxDYvEv54oKoGxi8bT/3eZOGFYfSCNKwy5r3G1KFrMzd/ruiE QiE7+9+IDHVe23OmYNLlX6/5jWgA2tBeK+OClAUGSeP63PE8bxNlxgDAckm5luan1btrJ7 gdIM+uawHJ+m0tcrG2OQM0lyZtm/ceg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1783344394; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Z0p4RX+eaUBEmcOc3ua1tOf/FIeNF/0ytgVmxaYGatk=; b=zwrEMc58ZBQ7sY04w/Eu4wBBrWmHumfKpmKScV5SnCiGmZ+dgWDovepKb6D1I5knrstO14 CwXfeTiUAmHEhGBw== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6224779AA; Mon, 6 Jul 2026 13:26:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id bKYqMQmtS2pqSQAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Mon, 06 Jul 2026 13:26:33 +0000 Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2026 15:26:33 +0200 Message-ID: <87jyr88d12.wl-tiwai@suse.de> From: Takashi Iwai To: Cezary Rojewski Cc: Bui Duc Phuc , Kees Cook , Dan Carpenter , Cen Zhang , Len Bao , Mehul Rao , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , , , "Jaroslav Kysela" , Takashi Iwai , Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Return -ENODEV instead of -EFAULT on module-get failure In-Reply-To: <83d2a230-71e8-4a24-9dce-363e1b230b54@intel.com> References: <20260706084950.49331-1-phucduc.bui@gmail.com> <703ea25d-6c74-495f-8d0b-e48e5868a96e@intel.com> <83d2a230-71e8-4a24-9dce-363e1b230b54@intel.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/30.2 Mule/6.0 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.80 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.80 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[99.99%]; SUSPICIOUS_RECIPS(1.50)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MID_CONTAINS_FROM(1.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCPT_COUNT_TWELVE(0.00)[13]; FUZZY_RATELIMITED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FREEMAIL_ENVRCPT(0.00)[gmail.com,gmx.us]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_CC(0.00)[gmail.com,kernel.org,gmx.us,linutronix.de,vger.kernel.org,perex.cz,suse.com]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.de:s=susede2_rsa,suse.de:s=susede2_ed25519]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[suse.de:mid] X-Spam-Level: On Mon, 06 Jul 2026 15:13:15 +0200, Cezary Rojewski wrote: > > On 7/6/2026 2:31 PM, Bui Duc Phuc wrote: > > >> Now, there is a benefit of having a different error code in > >> try_module_get() case: easier to find the offending bit when viewing > >> logs. All the functions in the area have rather low log-coverage so > >> distinct error codes help. > >> > >> Regardless, as you mentioned, -EFAULT isn't exactly the right return > >> code either so the direction of the patchset is good. > > > > Should I also add dev_err() at these paths, or is the distinct error > > code enough for now? > Nah, typically I prefer not to mix the changes, let them remain > atomic. Distinct error code is enough. > > In regard to the specific constant, I'd ask Takashi and Jaroslav > what's their view on the subject. Perhaps -EPERM or -ENOENT are good > candidates. A quick grep showed the statics like: 85 ENODEV 41 EINVAL 17 EBUSY 16 EFAULT 14 ENOENT 10 EPROBE 8 EIO 6 ENXIO 3 EPROTONOSUPPORT 3 EAGAIN 3 EACCES 2 EXPORT 2 EPERM 2 ENOLCK 1 EPROTO 1 EOPNOTSUPP 1 ENOSYS 1 ENOPROTOOPT 1 EAFNOSUPPORT So -ENODEV looks fine. thanks, Takashi