linux-kernel - Re: [net-next PATCH 1/3] net: phy: extend PHY package API to support multiple global address

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]

Message-ID: <65638d0a.050a0220.5d4fd.3082@mx.google.com>
Date:   Sun, 26 Nov 2023 19:23:03 +0100
From:   Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>,
        Broadcom internal kernel review list 
        <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
        David Epping <david.epping@...singlinkelectronics.com>,
        Harini Katakam <harini.katakam@....com>,
        "Russell King (Oracle)" <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 1/3] net: phy: extend PHY package API to support
 multiple global address

On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 07:19:16PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > static inline int phy_package_read(struct phy_device *phydev,
> > > 				   unsigned int addr_offset, u32 regnum)
> > > {
> > > 	struct phy_package_shared *shared = phydev->shared;
> > > 	int addr = shared->base_addr + addr_offset;
> > 
> > Isn't this problematic if shared is NULL?
> 
> Duh! Yes, it is. But why should shared be NULL? The driver is doing a
> read on the package before the package is created. That is a bug. So
> an Opps is O.K, it helps find the bug. So i would drop the test for
> !shared.

Well yes I think we should assume those API to be called only in
config_once context or in package context. But is it Panic ok? I would
at least use something like BUG() to give descriptive warning instead of
NULL pointer exception. What do you think?

-- 
	Ansuel