netdev - Re: [PATCH] wifi: brcmfmac: Fix error return code in brcmf_sdio_download

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]

Date:   Thu, 1 Dec 2022 11:01:14 +0800
From:   wangyufen <wangyufen@...wei.com>
To:     Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>,
        Franky Lin <franky.lin@...adcom.com>
CC:     <aspriel@...il.com>, <hante.meuleman@...adcom.com>,
        <kvalo@...nel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
        <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        <brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@...adcom.com>,
        <SHA-cyfmac-dev-list@...ineon.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <arend@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: brcmfmac: Fix error return code in
 brcmf_sdio_download_firmware()



在 2022/11/30 19:19, Arend van Spriel 写道:
> On 11/30/2022 3:00 AM, wangyufen wrote:
>>
>>
>> 在 2022/11/30 1:41, Franky Lin 写道:
>>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 1:47 AM Wang Yufen <wangyufen@...wei.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Fix to return a negative error code -EINVAL instead of 0.
>>>>
>>>> Compile tested only.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: d380ebc9b6fb ("brcmfmac: rename chip download functions")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Wang Yufen <wangyufen@...wei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c | 1 +
>>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c 
>>>> b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c
>>>> index 465d95d..329ec8ac 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c
>>>> @@ -3414,6 +3414,7 @@ static int brcmf_sdio_download_firmware(struct 
>>>> brcmf_sdio *bus,
>>>>          /* Take arm out of reset */
>>>>          if (!brcmf_chip_set_active(bus->ci, rstvec)) {
>>>>                  brcmf_err("error getting out of ARM core reset\n");
>>>> +               bcmerror = -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> ENODEV seems more appropriate here.
>>
>> However, if brcmf_chip_set_active()  fails in 
>> brcmf_pcie_exit_download_state(), "-EINVAL" is returned.
>> Is it necessary to keep consistent?
> 
> If we can not get the ARM on the chip out of reset things will fail soon 
> enough further down the road. Anyway, the other function calls return 
> -EIO so let's do the same here.
> 

So -EIO is better?  Anyone else have any other opinions? 😄

Thanks,
Wang

> Thanks,
> Arend