linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH net-next v8 4/5] net: rnpgbe: Add basic mbx

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]

Message-ID: <4E0FB703028E42A8+20250827063401.GA504899@nic-Precision-5820-Tower>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2025 14:34:01 +0800
From: Yibo Dong <dong100@...se.com>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc: andrew+netdev@...n.ch, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
	kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, horms@...nel.org,
	corbet@....net, gur.stavi@...wei.com, maddy@...ux.ibm.com,
	mpe@...erman.id.au, danishanwar@...com, lee@...ger.us,
	gongfan1@...wei.com, lorenzo@...nel.org, geert+renesas@...der.be,
	Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com, lukas.bulwahn@...hat.com,
	alexanderduyck@...com, richardcochran@...il.com, kees@...nel.org,
	gustavoars@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v8 4/5] net: rnpgbe: Add basic mbx_fw support

On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 10:26:38PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 8/26/25 8:45 PM, Dong Yibo wrote:
> > Initialize basic mbx_fw ops, such as get_capability, reset phy
> > and so on.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dong Yibo <dong100@...se.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/mucse/rnpgbe/Makefile    |   3 +-
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/mucse/rnpgbe/rnpgbe.h    |   1 +
> >  .../net/ethernet/mucse/rnpgbe/rnpgbe_mbx_fw.c | 253 ++++++++++++++++++
> >  .../net/ethernet/mucse/rnpgbe/rnpgbe_mbx_fw.h | 126 +++++++++
> >  4 files changed, 382 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >  create mode 100644 drivers/net/ethernet/mucse/rnpgbe/rnpgbe_mbx_fw.c
> >  create mode 100644 drivers/net/ethernet/mucse/rnpgbe/rnpgbe_mbx_fw.h
> > 
> 
> 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mucse/rnpgbe/rnpgbe_mbx_fw.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mucse/rnpgbe/rnpgbe_mbx_fw.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..d3b323760708
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mucse/rnpgbe/rnpgbe_mbx_fw.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,253 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +/* Copyright(c) 2020 - 2025 Mucse Corporation. */
> > +
> > +#include <linux/pci.h>
> > +#include <linux/if_ether.h>
> > +
> > +#include "rnpgbe.h"
> > +#include "rnpgbe_hw.h"
> > +#include "rnpgbe_mbx.h"
> > +#include "rnpgbe_mbx_fw.h"
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * mucse_fw_send_cmd_wait - Send cmd req and wait for response
> > + * @hw: pointer to the HW structure
> > + * @req: pointer to the cmd req structure
> > + * @reply: pointer to the fw reply structure
> > + *
> > + * mucse_fw_send_cmd_wait sends req to pf-fw mailbox and wait
> > + * reply from fw.
> > + *
> > + * @return: 0 on success, negative on failure
> 
> Use of @return: is not a documented feature although kernel-doc does accept it.
> I prefer that people don't use it, but I can't insist since it does work.
> 
> 

Maybe change it like this?
Return: 0 on success, negative errno on failure

> > + **/
> > +static int mucse_fw_send_cmd_wait(struct mucse_hw *hw,
> > +				  struct mbx_fw_cmd_req *req,
> > +				  struct mbx_fw_cmd_reply *reply)
> > +{
> > +	int len = le16_to_cpu(req->datalen);
> > +	int retry_cnt = 3;
> > +	int err;
> > +
> > +	err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&hw->mbx.lock);
> > +	if (err)
> > +		return err;
> > +	err = mucse_write_posted_mbx(hw, (u32 *)req, len);
> > +	if (err)
> > +		goto out;
> > +	do {
> > +		err = mucse_read_posted_mbx(hw, (u32 *)reply,
> > +					    sizeof(*reply));
> > +		if (err)
> > +			goto out;
> > +		/* mucse_write_posted_mbx return 0 means fw has
> > +		 * received request, wait for the expect opcode
> > +		 * reply with 'retry_cnt' times.
> > +		 */
> > +	} while (--retry_cnt >= 0 && reply->opcode != req->opcode);
> > +out:
> > +	mutex_unlock(&hw->mbx.lock);
> > +	if (!err && retry_cnt < 0)
> > +		return -ETIMEDOUT;
> > +	if (!err && reply->error_code)
> > +		return -EIO;
> > +	return err;
> > +}
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * mucse_fw_get_capability - Get hw abilities from fw
> > + * @hw: pointer to the HW structure
> > + * @abil: pointer to the hw_abilities structure
> > + *
> > + * mucse_fw_get_capability tries to get hw abilities from
> > + * hw.
> > + *
> > + * @return: 0 on success, negative on failure
> 
> negative errno or just some negative number?
> 

errno, -EINTR, -EIO, -ETIMEDOUT
Maybe update it like this?

Return: 0 on success, negative errno on failure

> > + **/
> > +static int mucse_fw_get_capability(struct mucse_hw *hw,
> > +				   struct hw_abilities *abil)
> > +{
> > +	struct mbx_fw_cmd_reply reply = {};
> > +	struct mbx_fw_cmd_req req = {};
> > +	int err;
> > +
> > +	build_phy_abilities_req(&req);
> > +	err = mucse_fw_send_cmd_wait(hw, &req, &reply);
> > +	if (!err)
> > +		memcpy(abil, &reply.hw_abilities, sizeof(*abil));
> > +	return err;
> > +}
> 
> -- 
> ~Randy
> 
> 

Thanks for your feedback.