linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v18 05/11] PCI/ERR: Remove service dependency in pcie_do

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:   Sat, 28 Mar 2020 16:32:41 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To:     "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        ashok.raj@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 05/11] PCI/ERR: Remove service dependency in
 pcie_do_recovery()

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 02:12:48PM -0700, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> On 3/23/20 5:26 PM, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com wrote:
> > From: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
> > 
> 
> > +void pcie_do_recovery(struct pci_dev *dev,
> > +		      enum pci_channel_state state,
> > +		      pci_ers_result_t (*reset_link)(struct pci_dev *pdev))
> >   {
> >   	pci_ers_result_t status = PCI_ERS_RESULT_CAN_RECOVER;
> >   	struct pci_bus *bus;
> > @@ -206,9 +165,12 @@ void pcie_do_recovery(struct pci_dev *dev, enum pci_channel_state state,
> >   	pci_dbg(dev, "broadcast error_detected message\n");
> >   	if (state == pci_channel_io_frozen) {
> >   		pci_walk_bus(bus, report_frozen_detected, &status);
> > -		status = reset_link(dev, service);
> > -		if 		if (reset_link)
> 			status = reset_link(dev);(status == PCI_ERS_RESULT_DISCONNECT
> > +		status = reset_link(dev);
> Above line needs to be replaced as below. Since there is a
> possibility reset_link can NULL (eventhough currently its
> not true).
> 		if (reset_link)
> 			status = reset_link(dev);
> Shall I submit another version to add above fix on top of
> our pci/edr branch ?

No, I can squash that in if needed.

But I don't actually think we *do* need it.  All the callers supply a
valid reset_link function pointer, and if somebody changes or adds a
new one that doesn't, I'd rather take the null pointer exception and
find out about it than silently ignore it.

Bjorn