netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: mdiobus: add APIs for modifying a MDIO device register

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:   Tue, 17 Mar 2020 15:09:00 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: mdiobus: add APIs for modifying a MDIO
 device register

> > Hi Russell
> > 
> > There seems to be growing push back on using BUG_ON and its
> > variants. If should only be used if the system is so badly messed up,
> > going further would only cause more damage. What really happens here
> > if it is called in interrupt context? The mutex lock probably won't
> > work, and we might corrupt the state of the PCS. That is not the end
> > of the world. So i would suggest a WARN_ON here.
> 
> Do we even need these checks? (phylib has them scattered throughout
> on the bus accessors.)  Aren't the might_sleep() checks that are
> already in the locking functions already sufficient?

Hi Russell

I agree, the might_sleep() should be sufficient.

  Andrew