netdev - Re: [PATCHv5] ethtool: Added FW dump support

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 02 Jun 2011 19:40:49 +0100
From:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To:	Anirban Chakraborty <anirban.chakraborty@...gic.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5] ethtool: Added FW dump support

On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 11:27 -0700, Anirban Chakraborty wrote:
> Ben,
> 
> I've updated the patch with your review comments. Please apply.

You haven't included the manual page changes.  Maybe you edited
ethtool.8, which is generated from ethtool.8.in (substituting the
version string)?  You need to edit and commit ethtool.8.in.

[...]
> +static int do_getfwdump(int fd, struct ifreq *ifr)
> +{
> +	int err;
> +	struct ethtool_dump edata;
> +	struct ethtool_dump *data;
> +
> +	edata.cmd = ETHTOOL_GET_DUMP_FLAG;
> +
> +	ifr->ifr_data = (caddr_t) &edata;
> +	err = send_ioctl(fd, ifr);
> +	if (err < 0) {
> +		perror("Can not get dump level\n");
> +		return 1;
> +	}
> +	if (dump_flag != ETHTOOL_GET_DUMP_DATA) {
> +		fprintf(stdout, "flag: %u, version: %u, length: %u\n",
> +			edata.flag, edata.version, edata.len);
> +		return 0;
> +	}
> +	data = calloc(1, offsetof(struct ethtool_dump, data) + edata.len);
> +	if (!data) {
> +		perror("Can not allocate enough memory\n");
> +		return 1;
> +	}
> +	data->cmd = ETHTOOL_GET_DUMP_DATA;
> +	data->len = edata.len;
> +	ifr->ifr_data = (caddr_t) data;
> +	err = send_ioctl(fd, ifr);
> +	if (err < 0) {
> +		perror("Can not get dump data\n");
> +		goto free;
> +	}
> +	err = do_writefwdump(data);
> +free:
> +	free(data);
> +	return err;
> +}
[...]

I think the last statement should be:
	return err ? 1 : 0;
Otherwise we may return -1.

Otherwise, this looks good.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.

--
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