linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net v1] hinic: fix a bug of ndo

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: <39a37452-c743-d1b5-d9dd-83d3058ee217@huawei.com>
Date:   Sat, 9 May 2020 10:13:00 +0800
From:   "luobin (L)" <luobin9@...wei.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC:     <davem@...emloft.net>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <luoxianjun@...wei.com>,
        <yin.yinshi@...wei.com>, <cloud.wangxiaoyun@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v1] hinic: fix a bug of ndo_stop

The two modified points are relevant. We bump the timeout for SET_FUNC_STATE

to ensure that cmd won't return failure when hw is busy. Otherwise hw 
may stomp

host memory if we free memory regardless of the return value of 
SET_FUNC_STATE.

I will mention the timeout changes in the commit message. And the bug 
exists since

the first commit, not introduced. Thanks for your review.

On 2020/5/9 5:24, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2020 18:22:27 +0000 Luo bin wrote:
>> if some function in ndo_stop interface returns failure because of
>> hardware fault, must go on excuting rest steps rather than return
>> failure directly, otherwise will cause memory leak
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Luo bin <luobin9@...wei.com>
> The code looks good, but would it make sense to split this patch into
> two? First one that ignores the return values on close path with these
> fixes tags:
>
> Fixes: e2585ea77538 ("net-next/hinic: Add Rx handler")
> Fixes: c4d06d2d208a ("net-next/hinic: Add Rx mode and link event handler")
>
> And a separate patch which bumps the timeout for SET_FUNC_STATE? Right
> now you don't even mention the timeout changes in the commit message.
> .