linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] stmmac: Replace deprecated PCI functions

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: <885058ae-605b-46e6-989b-3ff52908e6fd@lunn.ch>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 19:13:42 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Philipp Stanner <phasta@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
	Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
	Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>,
	Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
	Yinggang Gu <guyinggang@...ngson.cn>,
	Yanteng Si <si.yanteng@...ux.dev>,
	Philipp Stanner <pstanner@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] stmmac: Replace deprecated PCI functions

>  	/* Get the base address of device */
> -	for (i = 0; i < PCI_STD_NUM_BARS; i++) {
> -		if (pci_resource_len(pdev, i) == 0)
> -			continue;
> -		ret = pcim_iomap_regions(pdev, BIT(0), pci_name(pdev));
> -		if (ret)
> -			goto err_disable_device;
> -		break;
> -	}
> -
> -	memset(&res, 0, sizeof(res));
> -	res.addr = pcim_iomap_table(pdev)[0];
> +	res.addr = pcim_iomap_region(pdev, 0, DRIVER_NAME);

I don't know too much about PCI, but this change does not look
obviously correct to me. Maybe the commit message needs expanding to
explain why the loop can be thrown away? Also, is that BIT(0) actually
wrong, it should of been BIT(i)? Is that why the loop is pointless and
can be removed? If so, we should be asking the developer of this code
what are the implications of the bug. Should the loop be kept?

	Andrew