netdev - Re: [PATCH] phy: remove irq param to fix crash in fixed_phy

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: <20160517.143030.176679255082144481.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 17 May 2016 14:30:30 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	f.fainelli@...il.com
Cc:	rabin.vincent@...s.com, andrew@...n.ch, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, rabinv@...s.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] phy: remove irq param to fix crash in fixed_phy_add()

From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 11:27:12 -0700

> On 05/17/2016 11:20 AM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Rabin Vincent <rabin.vincent@...s.com>
>> Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 13:15:56 +0200
>> 
>>> From: Rabin Vincent <rabinv@...s.com>
>>>
>>> Since e7f4dc3536a ("mdio: Move allocation of interrupts into core"),
>>> platforms which call fixed_phy_add() before fixed_mdio_bus_init() is
>>> called (for example, because the platform code and the fixed_phy driver
>>> use the same initcall level) crash in fixed_phy_add() since the
>>> ->mii_bus is not allocated.
>>>
>>> Also since e7f4dc3536a, these interrupts are initalized to polling by
>>> default.  All callers of both fixed_phy_register() and fixed_phy_add()
>>> pass PHY_POLL for the irq argument, so we can fix these crashes by
>>> simply removing the irq parameter, since the default is correct for all
>>> users.
>>>
>>> Fixes: e7f4dc3536a400 ("mdio: Move allocation of interrupts into core")
>>> Signed-off-by: Rabin Vincent <rabinv@...s.com>
>> 
>> Applied.
> 
> David, there was a v2 sent just earlier this morning here:
> 
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/622967/
> 
> which was appropriately marked with Changes Requested, so why would we
> apply v1?

And that v2 needs changes still.

My bad I'll revert v1, sorry.