netdev - Re: [PATCH V3 net-next 02/14] net/ena: fix error handling when probe fails

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Sat, 28 Jan 2017 00:33:33 +0100
From:   Lino Sanfilippo <LinoSanfilippo@....de>
To:     Netanel Belgazal <netanel@...apurnalabs.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     dwmw@...zon.com, zorik@...apurnalabs.com, alex@...apurnalabs.com,
        saeed@...apurnalabs.com, msw@...zon.com, aliguori@...zon.com,
        nafea@...apurnalabs.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 net-next 02/14] net/ena: fix error handling when probe
 fails

Hi,

On 26.01.2017 23:18, Netanel Belgazal wrote:
> When driver fails in probe, it will release all resources,
> including adapter.
> In case of probe failure, ena_remove should not try to
> free the adapter resources.
>
> Signed-off-by: Netanel Belgazal <netanel@...apurnalabs.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/amazon/ena/ena_netdev.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/amazon/ena/ena_netdev.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/amazon/ena/ena_netdev.c
> index 7493ea3..cb60567 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/amazon/ena/ena_netdev.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/amazon/ena/ena_netdev.c
> @@ -3046,6 +3046,7 @@ static int ena_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *ent)
>  err_free_region:
>  	ena_release_bars(ena_dev, pdev);
>  err_free_ena_dev:
> +	pci_set_drvdata(pdev, NULL);
>  	vfree(ena_dev);
>  err_disable_device:
>  	pci_disable_device(pdev);
>

Is this change really a "fix"? remove() should only be called if
probe() has been successful before, otherwise not. Did you experience
something different?

Regards,
Lino