netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 2/9] net: phy: Guard against the presence of a netdev

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: <20190523221835.GB21208@lunn.ch>
Date:   Fri, 24 May 2019 00:18:35 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>
Cc:     "linux@...linux.org.uk" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        "f.fainelli@...il.com" <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "hkallweit1@...il.com" <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        "maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com" <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>,
        "olteanv@...il.com" <olteanv@...il.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 2/9] net: phy: Guard against the presence of
 a netdev

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 01:20:38AM +0000, Ioana Ciornei wrote:
> A prerequisite for PHYLIB to work in the absence of a struct net_device
> is to not access pointers to it.
> 
> Changes are needed in the following areas:
> 
>  - Printing: In some places netdev_err was replaced with phydev_err.
> 
>  - Incrementing reference count to the parent MDIO bus driver: If there
>    is no net device, then the reference count should definitely be
>    incremented since there is no chance that it was an Ethernet driver
>    who registered the MDIO bus.
> 
>  - Sysfs links are not created in case there is no attached_dev.
> 
>  - No netif_carrier_off is done if there is no attached_dev.

Hi Ioana

Looking at the functions changed here, they seem to be related to
phy_attach(), phy_connect(), and phy_detach() etc. Is the intention
you can call these functions and pass a NULL pointer for the
net_device?

	Andrew