netdev - Re: [patch 08/18] 3c59x: check return of pci_enable

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:59:10 +0200
From:	Steffen Klassert <klassert@...hematik.tu-chemnitz.de>
To:	Mark Hindley <mark@...dley.org.uk>
Cc:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 08/18] 3c59x: check return of pci_enable_device()

On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 06:30:00PM +0200, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 10:54:32AM +0100, Mark Hindley wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 01:33:26AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > > I would strongly prefer that vortex_up return a value, since all the 
> > > important callers of this function can themselves return an error back 
> > > to the system.
> > > 
> > > we can definitely return a meaningful return value here, if 
> > > pci_enable_device() fails, and I would rather not apply a patch that 
> > > fails to propagate a serious condition (pci_enable_device failure is 
> > > indeed serious) when it is possible to do so
> > > 
> > 
> > OK. Any comments on this revised version? I have only ignored the return of
> > vortex_up in vortex_error. It is not immediately clear what to do if
> > vortex_up still fails there after a pci reset.
> > 
> > Mark
> > 
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/3c59x.c b/drivers/net/3c59x.c
> > index 001c66d..a1dfd6b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/3c59x.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/3c59x.c
> > @@ -705,7 +705,7 @@ static struct {
> >  
> >  static int vortex_probe1(struct device *gendev, void __iomem *ioaddr, int irq,
> >  				   int chip_idx, int card_idx);
> > -static void vortex_up(struct net_device *dev);
> > +static int vortex_up(struct net_device *dev);
> >  static void vortex_down(struct net_device *dev, int final);
> >  static int vortex_open(struct net_device *dev);
> >  static void mdio_sync(void __iomem *ioaddr, int bits);
> > @@ -841,8 +841,11 @@ static int vortex_resume(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> >  			return -EBUSY;
> >  		}
> >  		if (netif_running(dev)) {
> > -			vortex_up(dev);
> > -			netif_device_attach(dev);
> > +			err = vortex_up(dev);
> > +			if (err)
> > +				return err;
> > +			else  
> > +				netif_device_attach(dev);
> >  		}
> >  	}
> >  	return 0;
> 
> I think we should free the requested irq if vortex_up really fails here.
> 

I was wrong, this will be done in vortex_close. So it is OK as it is.

Steffen 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html