netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] net: phy: Have __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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180114180411.GB4840@lunn.ch>
Date:   Sun, 14 Jan 2018 19:04:11 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     geert@...ux-m68k.org, niklas.cassel@...s.com,
        Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: phy: Have __phy_modify return 0 on success

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 03:01:36PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> __phy_modify would return the old value of the register before it was
> modified. Thus on success, it does not return 0, but a positive value.
> Thus functions using phy_modify, which is a wrapper around
> __phy_modify, can start returning > 0 on success, rather than 0. As a
> result, breakage has been noticed in various places, where 0 was
> assumed.
> 
> Code inspection does not find any current location where the return of
> the old value is currently used. So have __phy_modify return 0 on
> success. When there is a real need for the old value, either a new
> accessor can be added, or an additional parameter passed.
> 
> Fixes: fea23fb591cc ("net: phy: convert read-modify-write to phy_modify()")
> Fixes: 2b74e5be17d2 ("net: phy: add phy_modify() accessor")
> Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
> Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>

Hi David

Is there any particular reason you have not picked up this patch?  Do
you want more testing? An O.K. from Russell?

Thanks
	Andrew