netdev - Re: [Linux-kernel] [net-next, 2/5] sh_eth: WARN on access to a register not implemented in a particular chip

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: <54FF4E1F.7050508@cogentembedded.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Mar 2015 23:03:43 +0300
From:	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
To:	Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>,
	Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...ts.codethink.co.uk,
	Yoshihiro Kaneko <ykaneko0929@...il.com>,
	Mitsuhiro Kimura <mitsuhiro.kimura.kc@...esas.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>,
	Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <nobuhiro.iwamatsu.yj@...esas.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [Linux-kernel] [net-next, 2/5] sh_eth: WARN on access to a register
 not implemented in a particular chip

Hello.

On 03/09/2015 11:50 AM, Ben Dooks wrote:

>>>> Currently we may silently read/write a register at offset 0.  Change
>>>> this to WARN and then ignore the write or read-back all-ones.

>>>> Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>
>>>> Acked-by: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>

>>> While this may be a good idea for debugging...

>>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/sh_eth.h
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/sh_eth.h
>>>> @@ -543,19 +543,29 @@ static inline void sh_eth_soft_swap(char *src, int len)
>>>>   #endif
>>>>   }
>>>>
>>>> +#define SH_ETH_OFFSET_INVALID	((u16) ~0)
>>>> +
>>>>   static inline void sh_eth_write(struct net_device *ndev, u32 data,
>>>>   				int enum_index)
>>>>   {
>>>>   	struct sh_eth_private *mdp = netdev_priv(ndev);

> does de-referencing this each time make a difference? Looks like

   It's not a dereference, it's just a pointer addition.

> it would have been easier to pass an "struct sh_eth_private" instead
> of the "struct net_device *ndev"

    Hm, maybe...

>>>> +	u16 offset = mdp->reg_offset[enum_index];
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (WARN_ON(offset == SH_ETH_OFFSET_INVALID))
>>>> +		return;

> You could cange the mdp->reg_offset to an mdp->reg_pointer and make
> any invalid registers a NULL. This would at-least make it fail on an
> invalid access.

    Interesting idea...

WBR, Sergei

--
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