netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: phy: call phy_disable_interrupts() in phy_attach

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 08 Sep 2020 20:01:55 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com
Cc:     andrew@...n.ch, hkallweit1@...il.com, linux@...linux.org.uk,
        kuba@...nel.org, Jisheng.Zhang@...aptics.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: phy: call phy_disable_interrupts() in
 phy_attach_direct() instead

From: Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>
Date: Tue,  8 Sep 2020 20:27:20 +0900

> @@ -1423,6 +1419,10 @@ int phy_attach_direct(struct net_device *dev, struct phy_device *phydev,
>  	if (err)
>  		goto error;
>  
> +	ret = phy_disable_interrupts(phydev);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +

How did you test this?

I am very serious.

There is no 'ret' variable in this function, you do not add one, and
therefore this does not even compile.

If you are patching against a different tree than the networking GIT
tree, that is a major mistake as well.

That also is why it is very important to specify the destination GIT
tree in your subject line such as "[PATCH net]" or "[PATCH net-next]".

Thank you.