netdev - Re: net: hix5hd2_gmac uninitialized net

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

Date:   Fri, 10 Feb 2017 18:21:35 +0800
From:   Dongpo Li <lidongpo@...ilicon.com>
To:     Marty Plummer <netz.kernel@...il.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     <yisen.zhuang@...wei.com>, <salil.mehta@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: net: hix5hd2_gmac uninitialized net_device



On 2017/2/10 15:45, Marty Plummer wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 01:41:18AM -0600, Marty Plummer wrote:
>> Greetings.
>>
>> I think I may have found a bug with the hix5hd2_gmac driver; unless I'm
>> missing something, it appears that somehow the net_device struct is not
>> being initialized properly in the hix5hd2_dev_probe function.
>>
>> Having set up my devicetree properly (I hope, still new to this), I first
>> recieved an error when inserting the module:
>> "(unnamed net_device) (uninitialized): No irq resource"
>> while I very clearly have the interrupts property defined within this node.
>>
I think the error "No irq resource" happened for some other reason, has no relation with
the info "(unnamed net_device) (uninitialized):".
You can add more debug info to find bug.

>> Removing the phy-handle node for testing purposes, I get a similar message:
>> "(unnamed net_device) (uninitialized): not find phy-handle"
>>
>> So, it seams to my (admittedly inexperienced) mind that the ndev pointer is
>> not being initialized properly, or that the error checking at line 1111
>> is not functioning properly either, for it to have gotten so far along
>> into the function, only to fail at the attempt to access the ndev pointer.
>>
Yes, I agree with you that the ndev has not been initialized completely,
because the function "register_netdev" has not been called yet.
It's better to use the "dev_err" to replace the "netdev_err".

>> If you require more information from me, please let me know.
>>
>> Marty
> 
> Sorry, forgot the subject. Still getting the hang of mutt.
> 
> 

    Regards,
    Dongpo

.