netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] r8169: perform reset synchronously in __rtl8169

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: <20180522.135905.2272754708817453523.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Tue, 22 May 2018 13:59:05 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     hkallweit1@...il.com
Cc:     nic_swsd@...ltek.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] r8169: perform reset synchronously in
 __rtl8169_resume

From: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 19:01:19 +0200

> The driver uses pm_runtime_get_sync() in few places and relies on the
> device being fully runtime-resumed after this call. So far however
> the runtime resume callback triggers an asynchronous reset. 
> Avoid this and perform the reset synchronously.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169.c
> index 75dfac024..1eb4f625a 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169.c
> @@ -7327,9 +7327,9 @@ static void __rtl8169_resume(struct net_device *dev)
>  	rtl_lock_work(tp);
>  	napi_enable(&tp->napi);
>  	set_bit(RTL_FLAG_TASK_ENABLED, tp->wk.flags);
> +	if (netif_running(dev))
> +		rtl_reset_work(tp);
>  	rtl_unlock_work(tp);
> -
> -	rtl_schedule_task(tp, RTL_FLAG_TASK_RESET_PENDING);
>  }
>  

Given what we know about ->ndo_open() and the checks by the callers of
__rtl8169_resume(), the netif_running() test seems superfluous or
wrong.

Either way you need to resolve this somehow.