netdev - Re. Please pull 'upstream' branch of wireless-2.6

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <6.1.1.1.2.20061229110738.02b325c8@192.168.6.12>
Date:	Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:28:10 +0100
From:	Roger While <simrw@...-basis.de>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linville@...driver.com, jeff@...zik.org
Subject: Re. Please pull 'upstream' branch of wireless-2.6

> > Roy Marples (1):
> >       prism54: set carrier flags correctly
>
>Why is this not #upstream-fixes material?  What's the impact?

Actually, I think the patch is incorrect.
At best it is insufficient and at worst it
stops the driver working correctly.

I can't see why we do carrier_off after start_queue in the open.
Other drivers (eg. ipw2100) do carrier_on.

We should also look at other places where eg. stop_queue
is called and do a carrier_off eg. the close routine.
(Amongst others)

Also according to Documentation/networking/operstates.txt
(netif_carrier_on/off) -
"It is guaranteed that only the driver has write access,
  however, if different layers of the driver manipulate the same flag,
  the driver has to provide the synchronisation needed."

The trap routine in isl_ioctl.c however is lockless.
Assuming that the doc is correct, I would have thought
that putting carrier_on/off here is buggy or ?

Roger While

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html