netdev - fsl/fman: Clarification for implementation details in dtsec

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 13 Jan 2016 22:20:45 +0100
From:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Igal Liberman <igal.liberman@...escale.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: fsl/fman: Clarification for implementation details in dtsec_config()

Hello,

The Coccinelle semantic patch "deref_null.cocci" pointed out a potential
problem in the implementation of the function "dtsec_config" (lines 1434-1439):
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fman/fman_dtsec.c?id=e5a03bfd873c29eb786655ef2e95e53ed242b404#n1434
…
	dtsec->tbiphy = of_phy_find_device(params->internal_phy_node);
	if (!dtsec->tbiphy) {
		pr_err("of_phy_find_device (TBI PHY) failed\n");
		put_device(&dtsec->tbiphy->mdio.dev);
		goto err_dtsec_drv_param;
	}
…

If the pointer "dtsec->tbiphy" is NULL, then it will especially matter
if the shown address computation will succeed.
Should the call of the function "put_device" be removed,
or was another argument intended?

Regards,
Markus