linux-kernel - Re: [RFC net-next (resend) 3/4] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: handle member-violations

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: <9026b4a60c2782b5d50fd26f07a12d7cd5e23015.camel@alliedtelesis.co.nz>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 04:39:20 +0000
From: Elliot Ayrey <Elliot.Ayrey@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
To: "andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>
CC: "razor@...ckwall.org" <razor@...ckwall.org>, "olteanv@...il.com"
	<olteanv@...il.com>, "bridge@...ts.linux.dev" <bridge@...ts.linux.dev>,
	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org"
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "f.fainelli@...il.com" <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	"roopa@...dia.com" <roopa@...dia.com>, "edumazet@...gle.com"
	<edumazet@...gle.com>, "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	"horms@...nel.org" <horms@...nel.org>, "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next (resend) 3/4] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: handle
 member-violations

On Fri, 2024-11-08 at 14:49 +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/switchdev.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/switchdev.c
> > @@ -79,5 +79,36 @@ int mv88e6xxx_handle_miss_violation(struct
> > mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
> >  				       brport,
> > &http://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=20988&d=jZeu528qsdfVmICHdkZAoueog
> > WLEwsN_Wa_RILla0Q&u=http%3a%2f%2finfo%2einfo NULL);
> >  	rtnl_unlock();
> >  
> > -	return err;
> > +	return notifier_to_errno(err);
> > +}
> 
> This change does not look obviously correct to me. What has a miss
> violation got to do with member violation? Is the existing code
> wrong?
> What about the case when mv88e6xxx_find_vid() returns an error?
> 
> 	Andrew

Hi Andrew, I forgot to remove this when preparing the patches, this was
intended to be a separate bug fix.

If mv88e6xxx_find_vid() returns an error it will return early, so the
notifier_to_errno() conversion will only happen after
call_switchdev_notifiers().