netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] ravb/sh_eth: fix sleep in atomic by reusing shared ethtool handlers

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]

Date:   Thu, 5 Jul 2018 08:59:22 +0300
From:   Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir_zapolskiy@...tor.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>, <andrew@...n.ch>,
        <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] ravb/sh_eth: fix sleep in atomic by reusing
 shared ethtool handlers

Hi David,

On 07/05/2018 03:56 AM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir_zapolskiy@...tor.com>
> Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 11:12:38 +0300
> 
>> For ages trivial changes to RAVB and SuperH ethernet links by means of
>> standard 'ethtool' trigger a 'sleeping function called from invalid
>> context' bug, to visualize it on r8a7795 ULCB:
>  ...
>> The root cause is that an attempt to modify ECMR and GECMR registers
>> only when RX/TX function is disabled was too overcomplicated in its
>> original implementation, also processing of an optional Link Change
>> interrupt added even more complexity, as a result the implementation
>> was error prone.
>>
>> The new locking scheme is confirmed to be correct by dumping driver
>> specific and generic PHY framework function calls with aid of ftrace
>> while running more or less advanced tests.
>>
>> Please note that sh_eth patches from the series were built-tested only.
>>
>> On purpose I do not add Fixes tags, the reused PHY handlers were added
>> way later than the fixed problems were firstly found in the drivers.
>>
>> Changes from v1 to v2:
>> * the original patches are split to bugfixes and enhancements only,
>>   both v1 and v2 series are absolutely equal in total, thus I omit
>>   description of changes in individual patches,
>> * the latter implies that there should be no strict need for retesting,
>>   but because formally two series are different, I have to drop the tags
>>   given by Geert and Andrew, please send your tags again.
> 
> These changes look fine to me but I want to see some reviews and/or
> testing before I apply them.
> 

Thanks to Geert for finding time to test v1 series, the sums of changes
are word for word, https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-renesas-soc/msg28666.html

Andrew also gave a number of Reviewed-by tags, but they are not directly
applicable to new patches, unfortunately.

In any case let's wait for scrupulous review completed by Sergei, I believe
he'd like to contribute to the review process, and Sergei may highlight more
shortcomings.

--
Best wishes,
Vladimir