linux-kernel - Re: [net-next PATCH v6 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: <6579d2cc.050a0220.e6ea.d8cf@mx.google.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Dec 2023 16:50:33 +0100
From:   Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
To:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>,
        Broadcom internal kernel review list 
        <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        "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>,
        Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v6 1/3] net: phy: extend PHY package API to
 support multiple global address

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 03:45:24PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 11:57:28AM +0100, Christian Marangi wrote:
> > -static inline int phy_package_read(struct phy_device *phydev, u32 regnum)
> > +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;
> >  
> > -	if (!shared)
> > +	if (addr >= PHY_MAX_ADDR)
> >  		return -EIO;
> 
> If we're going to check the address, I think we should check it
> properly, which means also checking whether it's become negative.
> 
> Alternatively, we could consider making "addr" and "base_addr"
> unsigned types, since they should never be negative. However,
> that probably should be done as a separate patch before this one.
>

Maybe I'm confused but isn't already like that?
On phy_package_join base_addr is already checked if it's negative (and
rejected)

addr_offset is unsigned so it can't be negative.

We can switch addr to unsigned just for the sake of it but if I'm not
wrong all the sanity check are already done.

-- 
	Ansuel