netdev - Re: [PATCH net] dmaengine: ti: k3-udma-glue: fix k3_udma_glue_tx_get

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: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 09:45:27 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Cc: Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
	Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
	Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...il.com>,
	Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@...com>,
	Roger Quadros <rogerq@...nel.org>,
	MD Danish Anwar <danishanwar@...com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] dmaengine: ti: k3-udma-glue: fix
 k3_udma_glue_tx_get_irq() error checking

On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 08:33:24AM +0200, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 02:05:31PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > The problem is that xudma_pktdma_tflow_get_irq() returns zero on error
> > and k3_ringacc_get_ring_irq_num() returns negatives.  This complicates
> > the error handling.  Change it to always return negative errors.
> > 
> > Both callers have other bugs as well.  The am65_cpsw_nuss_init_tx_chns()
> > function doesn't preserve the error code but instead returns success.
> > In prueth_init_tx_chns() there is a signedness bug since "tx_chn->irq"
> > is unsigned so negative errors are not handled correctly.
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 
> I understand that the problems are related, but there are several of them.
> Could they be handled in separate patches (applied in a specific order) ?
> I suspect this would aid backporting, and, moreover, I think it is nice
> to try to work on a one-fix-per-patch basis.
> 
> The above notwithstanding, I do agree with the correctness of your changes.
> 

Sure.  Let me write it like:

patch 1: fix first caller
patch 2: fix second caller
patch 3: re-write both callers to cleaner API

And we can push everything to net because it's nice to have one version
of the API instead of a version for net and a different version in
net-next.  Or we could apply patch 3 to only net-next.

regards,
dan carpenter