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]

Message-Id: <20180705.095631.647119741817887082.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Thu, 05 Jul 2018 09:56:31 +0900 (KST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     vladimir_zapolskiy@...tor.com
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

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.