netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 05/14] bnxt_en: Discover firmware error recovery capabilities.

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: <20190825.224913.1760774642952210371.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Sun, 25 Aug 2019 22:49:13 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     michael.chan@...adcom.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, vasundhara-v.volam@...adcom.com,
        jiri@...lanox.com, ray.jui@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 05/14] bnxt_en: Discover firmware error
 recovery capabilities.

From: Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2019 23:54:56 -0400

> +static int bnxt_hwrm_error_recovery_qcfg(struct bnxt *bp)
> +{
> +	struct hwrm_error_recovery_qcfg_output *resp = bp->hwrm_cmd_resp_addr;
> +	struct bnxt_fw_health *fw_health = bp->fw_health;
> +	struct hwrm_error_recovery_qcfg_input req = {0};
> +	int rc, i;
> +
> +	if (!(bp->fw_cap & BNXT_FW_CAP_ERROR_RECOVERY))
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	bnxt_hwrm_cmd_hdr_init(bp, &req, HWRM_ERROR_RECOVERY_QCFG, -1, -1);
> +	mutex_lock(&bp->hwrm_cmd_lock);
> +	rc = _hwrm_send_message(bp, &req, sizeof(req), HWRM_CMD_TIMEOUT);
> +	if (rc) {
> +		rc = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +		goto err_recovery_out;
> +	}

How is this logically an unsupported operation if you're guarding it's use
with an appropriate capability check?