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]

Date:   Fri, 24 May 2019 10:30:18 +0000
From:   Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
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


> 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

Hi Andrew,

Yes, the intention is exactly to pass a NULL pointer for the  net_device from PHYLINK.
The changes that do this are in "[RFC,net-next,5/9] net: phylink: Add phylink_create_raw".

--
Ioana