netdev - Re: [PATCH net 4/4] sfc: don't free_irq()s if they were never requested

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: <20200818120319.00001d7b@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:03:19 -0700
From:   Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
To:     Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
Cc:     <linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 4/4] sfc: don't free_irq()s if they were never
 requested

Edward Cree wrote:

> If efx_nic_init_interrupt fails, or was never run (e.g. due to an earlier
>  failure in ef100_net_open), freeing irqs in efx_nic_fini_interrupt is not
>  needed and will cause error messages and stack traces.
> So instead, only do this if efx_nic_init_interrupt successfully completed,
>  as indicated by the new efx->irqs_hooked flag.
> 
> Fixes: 965b549f3c20 ("sfc_ef100: implement ndo_open/close and EVQ probing")
> Signed-off-by: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>

Makes sense.
Reviewed-by: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>