netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] net: phy: add generic ndo_do_ioctl handler phy_do

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:   Sun, 19 Jan 2020 18:51:09 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Realtek linux nic maintainers <nic_swsd@...ltek.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] net: phy: add generic ndo_do_ioctl handler
 phy_do_ioctl

Hi Heiner

> Almost all drivers have the running check. I found five that don't:
> 
> *ag71xx, fec_mpc52xx*
> They don't have the running check but should, because the PHY is
> attached in ndo_open only.

So long an ndo_close() sets the phydev pointer to NULL, it should be
safe. But do the drivers do this?

> *agere, faraday, rdc*
> They don't have the running check and attach the PHY in probe.
> 
> So yes, we could add a second helper w/o the running check, even if
> it's just for three drivers. There may be more in the future.
> 
> > Do you plan to convert any more MAC drivers?
> > 
> Not yet ;) Question would be whether one patch would be sufficient
> or whether we need one patch per driver that needs to be ACKed by
> the respective maintainer.

For this sort of mechanical change, i would do one patch for all
without running, and another with running. If any driver needs more
than a mechanical change, then do a patch per driver, and get the
maintainer involved.

    Andrew