netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] bnx2x: turn off FCoE if storage MAC-address setup failed

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]

Message-ID: <faed05e5-f276-4445-85d0-bfa3d515539a@ancud.ru>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 17:10:09 +0300
From: Nikita Kiryushin <kiryushin@...ud.ru>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Sudarsana Kalluru <skalluru@...vell.com>,
 Manish Chopra <manishc@...vell.com>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 lvc-project@...uxtesting.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bnx2x: turn off FCoE if storage MAC-address
 setup failed

> How broken is it when this happens?
I can not say what would happen exactly, if the address is not assigned
the way it should. But there would be at least an attempt to free unallocated
address (in __bnx2x_remove).

> This is called from .probe. So
> returning the error code will fail the probe and the device will not
> be created. Is that a better solution?
To me, it does not seem fatal, that is why I am not returning error,
just print it and disable FCoE. The "rc" set will not be returned (unless
jumped to error handlers, which we are not doing). Would it be better, if
I used some other result variable other than "rc"? The check could be the call,
but than handling would be inside a lock, which I think is a bad idea.