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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKgT0UcbDT_ccC0M=hC121YZ3pVC1ht2uv9-vPDjMFtM5mKDWw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 Jan 2021 14:18:54 -0800
From:   Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
To:     Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        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 1/3] r8169: replace BUG_ON with WARN in _rtl_eri_write

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 5:32 AM Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Use WARN here to avoid stopping the system. In addition print the addr
> and mask values that triggered the warning.
>
> Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_main.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_main.c
> index 024042f37..9af048ad0 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_main.c
> @@ -763,7 +763,7 @@ static void _rtl_eri_write(struct rtl8169_private *tp, int addr, u32 mask,
>  {
>         u32 cmd = ERIAR_WRITE_CMD | type | mask | addr;
>
> -       BUG_ON((addr & 3) || (mask == 0));
> +       WARN(addr & 3 || !mask, "addr: 0x%x, mask: 0x%08x\n", addr, mask);
>         RTL_W32(tp, ERIDR, val);
>         r8168fp_adjust_ocp_cmd(tp, &cmd, type);
>         RTL_W32(tp, ERIAR, cmd);

Would it make more sense to perhaps just catch the case via an if
statement, display the warning, and then return instead of proceeding
with the write with the bad values?

I'm just wondering if this could make things worse by putting the
device in a bad state in some way resulting in either a timeout
waiting for a response or a hang.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ