netdev - Re: [PATCH] stating: octeon: Drop on uncorrectable alignment or FCS error

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:   Mon, 12 Oct 2020 14:23:56 +0200
From:   Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@...ia.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@....fi>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] stating: octeon: Drop on uncorrectable alignment or FCS
 error

Hello Dan,

On 09/10/2020 14:24, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 11:46:05AM +0200, Alexander A Sverdlin wrote:
>> --- a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-rx.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-rx.c
>> @@ -69,14 +69,16 @@ static inline int cvm_oct_check_rcv_error(struct cvmx_wqe *work)
>>  	else
>>  		port = work->word1.cn38xx.ipprt;
>>  
>> -	if ((work->word2.snoip.err_code == 10) && (work->word1.len <= 64)) {
>> +	if ((work->word2.snoip.err_code == 10) && (work->word1.len <= 64))
>>  		/*
>>  		 * Ignore length errors on min size packets. Some
>>  		 * equipment incorrectly pads packets to 64+4FCS
>>  		 * instead of 60+4FCS.  Note these packets still get
>>  		 * counted as frame errors.
>>  		 */
>> -	} else if (work->word2.snoip.err_code == 5 ||
>> +		return 0;
>> +
>> +	if (work->word2.snoip.err_code == 5 ||
>>  		   work->word2.snoip.err_code == 7) {
> This line is indented to match the old code and it no longer matches.
> (Please update the whitespace).

thanks to your comment I took a fresh look onto the patch and found a logic error
in the change. Please ignore the whole patch for now.
 
>>  		/*
>>  		 * We received a packet with either an alignment error

-- 
Best regards,
Alexander Sverdlin.