linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] Revert "net: ethernet: ixgbe: check the return value of ixgbe_mii_bus

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: <BYAPR11MB2600978E50C821FBC4DC66DAE5370@BYAPR11MB2600.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Sat, 26 Sep 2020 23:27:05 +0000
From:   "Liu, Yongxin" <Yongxin.Liu@...driver.com>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
CC:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Revert "net: ethernet: ixgbe: check the return value of
 ixgbe_mii_bus_init()"

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 17:44
> To: Liu, Yongxin <Yongxin.Liu@...driver.com>
> Cc: David S . Miller <davem@...emloft.net>; netdev
> <netdev@...r.kernel.org>; LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "net: ethernet: ixgbe: check the return value
> of ixgbe_mii_bus_init()"
> 
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 10:51 AM Liu, Yongxin <Yongxin.Liu@...driver.com>
> wrote:
> >
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > > >                         true);
> > > >
> > > > -       err = ixgbe_mii_bus_init(hw);
> > > > -       if (err)
> > > > -               goto err_netdev;
> > > > +       ixgbe_mii_bus_init(hw);
> > > >
> > > >         return 0;
> > > >
> > > > -err_netdev:
> > > > -       unregister_netdev(netdev);
> > > >  err_register:
> > > >         ixgbe_release_hw_control(adapter);
> > > >         ixgbe_clear_interrupt_scheme(adapter);
> > > > --
> > > > 2.14.4
> > > >
> > >
> > > Then we should check if err == -ENODEV, not outright ignore all
> > > potential errors, right?
> > >
> >
> > Hm, it is weird to take -ENODEV as a no error.
> > How about just return 0 instead of -ENODEV in the following function?
> >
> 
> No, it's perfectly fine. -ENODEV means there's no device and this can
> happen. The caller can then act accordingly - for example: ignore that
> fact. We do it in several places[1].
> 
> Bartosz
> 
> [snip]
> 
> [1]
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c#
> L714


Okay, please go ahead and fix this issue.


Thanks,
Yongxin