linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/12] net: ll_temac: Support indirect

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

Date:   Tue, 30 Apr 2019 00:12:04 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Esben Haabendal <esben@...nix.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>,
        Yang Wei <yang.wei9@....com.cn>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/12] net: ll_temac: Support indirect_mutex share within
 TEMAC IP

> For OF devices, the xlnx,compound parent of the temac node should be
> used to find siblings, and setup a shared indirect_mutex between them.
> I will leave this work to somebody else, as I don't have hardware to
> test that.  No regression is introduced by that, as before this commit
> using two Ethernet interfaces in same TEMAC block is simply broken.

Is that true?

> @@ -1092,7 +1092,16 @@ static int temac_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	lp->dev = &pdev->dev;
>  	lp->options = XTE_OPTION_DEFAULTS;
>  	spin_lock_init(&lp->rx_lock);
> -	mutex_init(&lp->indirect_mutex);
> +
> +	/* Setup mutex for synchronization of indirect register access */
> +	if (pdata) {
> +		if (!pdata->indirect_mutex) {
> +			dev_err(&pdev->dev,
> +				"indirect_mutex missing in platform_data\n");
> +			return -EINVAL;
> +		}
> +		lp->indirect_mutex = pdata->indirect_mutex;
> +	}

In the OF case, isn't lp->indirect_mutex now a NULL pointer, where as
before it was a valid mutex?

Or did i miss something somewhere?

   Andrew