linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: Deal with unbound PHY driver in phy_attached

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: <20170822.144930.499626528600927895.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:49:30 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     f.fainelli@...il.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, romain.perier@...labora.com,
        alexandre.torgue@...com, peppe.cavallaro@...com, plaes@...es.org,
        andrew@...n.ch, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: Deal with unbound PHY driver in
 phy_attached_print()

From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:45:44 -0700

> On 08/22/2017 02:44 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
>> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:26:47 -0700
>> 
>>> Priit reported that stmmac was crashing with the trace below. This is because
>>> phy_attached_print() is called too early right after the PHY device has been
>>> found, but before it has a driver attached, since that is only done in
>>> phy_probe() which occurs later.
>>>
>>> Fix this by dealing with a possibly NULL phydev->drv point since that can
>>> happen here, but could also happen if we voluntarily did an unbind of the
>>> PHY device with the PHY driver.
>>  ...
>>> Tested-By: Priit Laes <plaes@...es.org>
>>> Fixes: fbca164776e4 ("net: stmmac: Use the right logging function in stmmac_mdio_register")
>>> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
>> 
>> "net-next"?  The commit which introduced this problem is in 'net', don't we want
>> to fix it there?
> 
> Oh yes we do, somehow I thought the commit was just in "net-next" hence
> the subject, the patch applies cleanly to "net" as well.

I thought so, thanks for clarifying.

Applied.