netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: ethernet: cpsw: fix interrupt lookup logic in cpsw

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: <5406D012.6030601@zonque.org>
Date:	Wed, 03 Sep 2014 10:23:46 +0200
From:	Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>
To:	Mugunthan V N <mugunthanvnm@...com>, davem@...emloft.net
CC:	julia.lawall@...6.fr, netdev@...r.kernel.org, george.cherian@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: ethernet: cpsw: fix interrupt lookup logic in
 cpsw_probe()

On 09/03/2014 10:22 AM, Mugunthan V N wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 September 2014 01:00 PM, Daniel Mack wrote:
>> On 09/03/2014 09:28 AM, Mugunthan V N wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 02 September 2014 10:14 PM, Daniel Mack wrote:
>>>> The code in cpsw_probe() currently iterates over the available
>>>> interrupt resources and requests each of them.  While doing so, it
>>>> keeps track of their indices through priv->irqs_table.
>>>>
>>>> However, the code currently only remembers the last interrupt in
>>>> a resource, and will leak the others if there is more than one.
>>>> This can only happen for board-file driven platforms and not via DT,
>>>> however.
>>>>
>>>> Also, there is currently no bounds check, while priv->irqs_table is a
>>>> fixed-size array. If we are passed more than 4 resources, we're in
>>>> trouble.
>>>>
>>>> This patch introduces a bounds check and changes the way interrupt
>>>> indices are kept. Tested on a Beagle Bone Black board only.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Mack <zonque@...il.com>
>>>
>>> The drivers is not supported for non-DT platforms as all the platforms
>>> which uses CPSW are DT only platforms.
>>
>> Ok, thanks for explaining.
>>
>> But then we can remove the iteration then and simplify the code, right?
>> The bounds check should also be done.
>>
> 
> Right, we can simplify the code.

Ok, I'll cook up a new patch.


Thanks!
Daniel

--
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