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: <c36867bd-fcb1-40b6-4f6e-b3ad2e6360dc@embeddedor.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Aug 2017 21:47:36 -0500
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.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

Hello everybody,

I'm a little confused. Is this patch causing any trouble?

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
-- 
Gustavo A. R. Silva