netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] s390/ism: Add check for dma_set_max_seg_size in ism

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: <20240627052023.GB1743080@maili.marvell.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 10:50:23 +0530
From: Ratheesh Kannoth <rkannoth@...vell.com>
To: Ma Ke <make24@...as.ac.cn>
CC: <wintera@...ux.ibm.com>, <twinkler@...ux.ibm.com>, <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        <gor@...ux.ibm.com>, <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
        <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>, <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
        <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] s390/ism: Add check for dma_set_max_seg_size in
 ism_probe()

On 2024-06-27 at 07:43:14, Ma Ke (make24@...as.ac.cn) wrote:
> As the possible failure of the dma_set_max_seg_size(), we should better
Could you expand on the scenario of failure ?
> check the return value of the dma_set_max_seg_size().

> +++ b/drivers/s390/net/ism_drv.c
> @@ -620,7 +620,10 @@ static int ism_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *id)
>  		goto err_resource;
>
>  	dma_set_seg_boundary(&pdev->dev, SZ_1M - 1);
> -	dma_set_max_seg_size(&pdev->dev, SZ_1M);
> +	ret = dma_set_max_seg_size(&pdev->dev, SZ_1M);
Same error check is not valid for dma_set_seg_boundary() ?

>