netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] bnxt_en: Fix 64-bit doorbell operation on 32-bit kernels

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:   Tue, 31 Aug 2021 16:59:18 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        edwin.peer@...adcom.com, gospo@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bnxt_en: Fix 64-bit doorbell operation on
 32-bit kernels

On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 18:28:45 -0400 Michael Chan wrote:
> The driver requires 64-bit doorbell writes to be atomic on 32-bit
> architectures.  So we redefined writeq as a new macro with spinlock
> protection on 32-bit architectures.  This created a new warning when
> we added a new file in a recent patchset.  writeq is defined on many
> 32-bit architectures to do the memory write non-atomically and it
> generated a new macro redefined warning.  This warning was fixed
> incorrectly in the recent patch.
> 
> Fix this properly by adding a new bnxt_writeq() function that will
> do the non-atomic write under spinlock on 32-bit systems.  All callers
> in the driver will now call bnxt_writeq() instead.
> 
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> Fixes: f9ff578251dc ("bnxt_en: introduce new firmware message API based on DMA pools")
> Reviewed-by: Edwin Peer <edwin.peer@...adcom.com>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>

Lots of these:

drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt.h: In function ‘bnxt_writeq’:
drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt.h:2116:13: error: ‘bp’ undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean ‘up’?
 2116 |  spin_lock(&bp->db_lock);
      |             ^~
      |             up