netdev - Re: [PATCH, net] ibmvnic: fix firmware version when no firmware level has been provided by the VIOS server

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <e82c4a78-37b3-afc5-6250-8ce8bb2ec5ce@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Feb 2018 13:02:38 -0800
From:   Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Desnes Augusto Nunes do Rosario <desnesn@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     tlfalcon@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        nfont@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, jallen@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH, net] ibmvnic: fix firmware version when no firmware level
 has been provided by the VIOS server

On 02/01/2018 10:04 AM, Desnes Augusto Nunes do Rosario wrote:
> Older versions of VIOS servers do not send the firmware level in the VPD
> buffer for the ibmvnic driver. Thus, not only the current message is mis-
> leading but the firmware version in the ethtool will be NULL. Therefore,
> this patch fixes the firmware string and its warning.
> 
> Fixes: 4e6759be28e4 ("ibmvnic: Feature implementation of VPD for the ibmvnic driver")
> 
> Signed-off-by: Desnes A. Nunes do Rosario <desnesn@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/ibmvnic.c | 6 +++++-
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/ibmvnic.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/ibmvnic.c
> index b65f5f3ac034..2b3e71b63a7a 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/ibmvnic.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/ibmvnic.c
> @@ -3290,7 +3290,11 @@ static void handle_vpd_rsp(union ibmvnic_crq *crq,
>  	 */
>  	substr = strnstr(adapter->vpd->buff, "RM", adapter->vpd->len);
>  	if (!substr) {
> -		dev_info(dev, "No FW level provided by VPD\n");
> +		dev_info(dev, "Warning - No FW level has been provided in the VPD buffer by the VIOS Server\n");
> +		ptr = strncpy((char *)adapter->fw_version, "N/A",

Is "N/A" the right thing to report? Would something like "Unknown" or "Unreported" be better?

> +			      3 * sizeof(char));
> +		if (!ptr)
> +			dev_err(dev, "Failed to inform that firmware version is unavailable to the adapter\n");

The sentence structure here seems awkward. I would probably just get rid of this error and this one later in the function.

	dev_err(dev, "Failed to isolate FW level string\n");

Instead just check and report if adapter->fw_version == NULL in the complete: label section.

-Tyrel

>  		goto complete;
>  	}
>