On 1/12/21 8:24 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > > >> > > If we're going to do a separate "patch: make process_sysctl_arg() >> > > return an errno instead of 0" then fine, we can discuss that. But it's >> > > conceptually a different work from fixing this situation. >> > > . >> > > >> > However, are the logs generated by process_sysctl_arg() clearer and more >> > accurate than parse_args()? Should the logs generated by >> > process_sysctl_arg() be deleted? >> >> I think the individual logs are very useful and should be retained. > > Yes, other sysfs specific error messages are likely useful. I just fail > to see why a missing value should be handled here when there is an > existing handling in the caller. Not sure whether a complete shadow > reporting in process_sysctl_arg is a deliberate decision or not. > Vlastimil? Yes, it's a way to have more useful sysctl-specific reports than the generic ones. And I think I was inspired by some other existing code, but don't remember exactly. The options are: 1) the current sysctl-specific reports, return 0 as the values are only consumed 2) be silent and return error, invent new error codes to have generic report be more useful for sysctl, but inevitably lose some nuances anyway 3) a mix where 2) is used for situations where generic report is sufficient enough, 1) where not Patch v2 went with option 1), v3 with option 3). I think it's down to preferences. I would personally go with v2 and message similar to the existing ones, i.e.: "Failed to set sysctl parameter '%s': no value given\n" Also we seem to be silently doing nothing when strlen(val) == 0, i.e. "hung_task_panic=" was passed. Worth reporting the same error. But v3 is fine with me as well. The generic error message works. We could just add "if (!len) return -EINVAL" below the strlen() call. Also please Cc: stable. > Anyway one way or the other, all I care about is to have a reporting in > place because this shouldn't be a silent failure. >
