netdev - Re: [PATCH net] nfp: don't depend on eth

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:   Fri, 27 Apr 2018 10:38:50 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, oss-drivers@...ronome.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] nfp: don't depend on eth_tbl being available

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 11:15:56 -0400 (EDT), David Miller wrote:
> From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:21:08 -0700
> 
> > For very very old generation of the management FW Ethernet port
> > information table may theoretically not be available.  This in
> > turn will cause the nfp_port structures to not be allocated.
> > 
> > Make sure we don't crash the kernel when there is no eth_tbl:
> > 
> > RIP: 0010:nfp_net_pci_probe+0xf2/0xb40 [nfp]
> > ...
> > Call Trace:
> >   nfp_pci_probe+0x6de/0xab0 [nfp]
> >   local_pci_probe+0x47/0xa0
> >   work_for_cpu_fn+0x1a/0x30
> >   process_one_work+0x1de/0x3e0
> > 
> > Found while working with broken/development version of management FW.
> > 
> > Fixes: a5950182c00e ("nfp: map mac_stats and vf_cfg BARs")
> > Fixes: 93da7d9660ee ("nfp: provide nfp_port to of nfp_net_get_mac_addr()")
> > Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Dirk van der Merwe <dirk.vandermerwe@...ronome.com>  
> 
> Applied, thanks Jakub.

Thank you!

> Do you want this queued up for -stable?  It seems borderline, at best, to me.

Yes, I think we don't need stable for now.  This should never happen
(tm) in production and there has been some churn around this code.  I
don't think it's worth a backport.