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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 11:13:55 +0200 (CEST) From: Ulrich Hecht <uli@...nd.eu> To: Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>, sergei.shtylyov@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ravb: Fix descriptor counters' conditions > On 07/27/2021 10:55 AM Ulrich Hecht <uli@...nd.eu> wrote: > > > > On 07/27/2021 10:21 AM Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com> wrote: > > > > > > The descriptor counters ({cur,dirty}_[rt]x) acts as free counters > > so that conditions are possible to be incorrect when a left value > > was overflowed. > > > > So, for example, ravb_tx_free() could not free any descriptors > > because the following condition was checked as a signed value, > > and then "NETDEV WATCHDOG" happened: > > > > for (; priv->cur_tx[q] - priv->dirty_tx[q] > 0; priv->dirty_tx[q]++) { > > > > To fix the issue, add get_num_desc() to calculate numbers of > > remaining descriptors. > > > > Fixes: c156633f1353 ("Renesas Ethernet AVB driver proper") > > Signed-off-by: Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com> > > --- > > drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb_main.c | 22 +++++++++++++++------- > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb_main.c > > index 805397088850..70fbac572036 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb_main.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb_main.c > > @@ -172,6 +172,14 @@ static const struct mdiobb_ops bb_ops = { > > .get_mdio_data = ravb_get_mdio_data, > > }; > > > > +static u32 get_num_desc(u32 from, u32 subtract) > > +{ > > + if (from >= subtract) > > + return from - subtract; > > + > > + return U32_MAX - subtract + 1 + from; > > +} > > This is a very roundabout way to implement an unsigned subtraction. :) > I think it would make more sense to simply return 0 if "subtract" is larger than "from". > (Likewise for sh_eth). ...and the tests for "> 0" should be rewritten as "!= 0". Sorry, not fully awake yet. CU Uli
Powered by blists - more mailing lists