netdev - Re: [PATCH wpan-next v3 07/11] net: ieee802154: at86rf230: Provide meaningful error codes when possible

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: <20220318085621.2de9730b@xps13>
Date:   Fri, 18 Mar 2022 08:56:21 +0100
From:   Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To:     Alexander Aring <alex.aring@...il.com>
Cc:     Stefan Schmidt <stefan@...enfreihafen.org>,
        linux-wpan - ML <linux-wpan@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "open list:NETWORKING [GENERAL]" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Girault <david.girault@...vo.com>,
        Romuald Despres <romuald.despres@...vo.com>,
        Frederic Blain <frederic.blain@...vo.com>,
        Nicolas Schodet <nico@...fr.eu.org>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH wpan-next v3 07/11] net: ieee802154: at86rf230: Provide
 meaningful error codes when possible

Hi Alexander,

alex.aring@...il.com wrote on Sun, 13 Mar 2022 16:16:45 -0400:

> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 1:25 PM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com> wrote:
> >
> > Either the spi operation failed, or the device encountered an error. In
> > both case, we know more or less what happened thanks to the spi call
> > return code or the content of the TRAC register otherwise. Use them in
> > order to propagate one step above the error.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c b/drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c
> > index 12ee071057d2..5f19266b3045 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c
> > @@ -370,7 +370,27 @@ static inline void
> >  at86rf230_async_error(struct at86rf230_local *lp,
> >                       struct at86rf230_state_change *ctx, int rc)
> >  {
> > -       dev_err(&lp->spi->dev, "spi_async error %d\n", rc);
> > +       int reason;
> > +
> > +       switch (rc) {
> > +       case TRAC_CHANNEL_ACCESS_FAILURE:
> > +               reason = IEEE802154_CHANNEL_ACCESS_FAILURE;
> > +               break;
> > +       case TRAC_NO_ACK:
> > +               reason = IEEE802154_NO_ACK;
> > +               break;
> > +       case TRAC_INVALID:
> > +               reason = IEEE802154_SYSTEM_ERROR;
> > +               break;
> > +       default:
> > +               reason = rc;
> > +       }
> > +  
> 
> Actually the rc value here is not a TRAC status register value... and
> it should not be one.
> 
> The reason is because this function can also be called during a non-tx
> state change failure whereas the trac register is only valid when the
> transmission "is successfully offloaded to device" and delivers us an
> error of the transmission operation on the device. It is called during
> the tx case only if there was a "state transition error" and then it
> should report IEEE802154_SYSTEM_ERROR in
> at86rf230_async_error_recover_complete(). Whereas I think we can use
> IEEE802154_SYSTEM_ERROR as a non-specific 802.15.4 error code, because
> a bus error of a state transition is not 802.15.4 specific.

Ok I'm totally fine using SYSTEM_ERROR as a generic placeholder in
these cases.

Thanks,
Miquèl