netdev - Re: [net-next 03/12] e1000e: add check on e1e

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]

Message-ID: <1502420020.3099.1.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Aug 2017 19:53:40 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>,
        Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>, davem@...emloft.net
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, nhorman@...hat.com, sassmann@...hat.com,
        jogreene@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [net-next 03/12] e1000e: add check on e1e_wphy() return value

On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 21:47 -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Hello everybody,
> 
> I'm a little confused. Is this patch causing any trouble?

Not to me.  I no longer have an e1000e.

Given the commit message, this just seemed to be a patch
that _might_ cause an issue if this code patch is actually
untested.

Compilation wise, it's obviously fine.

> On 08/10/2017 12:56 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-08-09 at 14:47 -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > > From: Gustavo A R Silva <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
> > > 
> > > Check return value from call to e1e_wphy(). This value is being
> > > checked during previous calls to function e1e_wphy() and it seems
> > > a check was missing here.
> > 
> > The use of "it seems" here is less than compelling.
> > 
> 
> This is one of the first patches I sent. Maybe I should have added a 
> note saying that this patch needed some testing, as I don't have the 
> hardware to test it.
> 
> > Perhaps the write of 0x3140 to MII_BMCR takes too long for
> > the return value used.
> > 
> > Many other uses of e1e_wphy.*MII_BMCR are also not checked.
> > 
> > For instance: the e100e/ethtool uses.
> > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/ich8lan.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/ich8lan.c
> > 
> > []
> > > @@ -2437,6 +2437,8 @@ static s32 e1000_hv_phy_workarounds_ich8lan(struct e1000_hw *hw)
> > >  		if (hw->phy.revision < 2) {
> > >  			e1000e_phy_sw_reset(hw);
> > >  			ret_val = e1e_wphy(hw, MII_BMCR, 0x3140);
> > > +			if (ret_val)
> > > +				return ret_val;
> > >  		}
> > >  	}
> > > 
> 
> Thanks