netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net: ethernet: marvell: octeontx2: nic: Add error pointer check in otx2

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: <20240924155812.GR4029621@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2024 16:58:12 +0100
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Dipendra Khadka <kdipendra88@...il.com>
Cc: sgoutham@...vell.com, gakula@...vell.com, sbhatta@...vell.com,
	hkelam@...vell.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
	kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: ethernet: marvell: octeontx2: nic: Add error
 pointer check in otx2_ethtool.c

On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 08:39:47PM +0545, Dipendra Khadka wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> 
> On Tue, 24 Sept 2024 at 12:55, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 11:31:34AM +0000, Dipendra Khadka wrote:
> > > Add error pointer check after calling otx2_mbox_get_rsp().
> > >
> >
> > Hi Dipendra,
> >
> > Please add a fixes tag here (no blank line between it and your
> > Signed-off-by line).
> > > Signed-off-by: Dipendra Khadka <kdipendra88@...il.com>
> >
> > As you have posted more than one patch for this driver, with very similar,
> > not overly complex or verbose changes, it might make sense to combine them
> > into a single patch. Or, if not, to bundle them up into a patch-set with a
> > cover letter.
> >
> > Regarding the patch subject, looking at git history, I think
> > an appropriate prefix would be 'octeontx2-pf:'. I would go for
> > something like this:
> >
> >   Subject: [PATCH net v2] octeontx2-pf: handle otx2_mbox_get_rsp errors
> >
> 
> If I bundle all the patches for the
> drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/ , will this subject without v2
> work? Or do I need to change anything? I don't know how to send the
> patch-set with the cover letter.

Given that one of the patches is already at v2, probably v3 is best.

If you use b4, it should send a cover letter if the series has more than 1
patch.  You can use various options to b4 prep to set the prefix
(net-next), version, and edit the cover (letter).  And you can use various
options to b4 send, such as -d, to test your submission before sending it
to the netdev ML.

Alternatively the following command will output 3 files: a cover letter and
a file for each of two patches, with v3 and net-next in the subject of each
file. You can edit these files and send them using git send-email.

git format-patch --cover-letter -2 -v3 --subject-prefix="PATCH net-next"

> 
> > As for the code changes themselves, module the nits below, I agree the
> > error handling is consistent with that elsewhere in the same functions, and
> > is correct.
> >
> > > ---
> > >  .../ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_ethtool.c    | 12 ++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_ethtool.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_ethtool.c
> > > index 0db62eb0dab3..36a08303752f 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_ethtool.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_ethtool.c
> > > @@ -343,6 +343,12 @@ static void otx2_get_pauseparam(struct net_device *netdev,
> > >       if (!otx2_sync_mbox_msg(&pfvf->mbox)) {
> > >               rsp = (struct cgx_pause_frm_cfg *)
> > >                      otx2_mbox_get_rsp(&pfvf->mbox.mbox, 0, &req->hdr);
> > > +
> >
> > nit: No blank line here.
> >
> > > +             if (IS_ERR(rsp)) {
> > > +                     mutex_unlock(&pfvf->mbox.lock);
> > > +                     return;
> > > +             }
> > > +
> 
> If the above blank line after the check is ok or do I have to remove
> this as well?

Please leave the blank line after the check (here).

> 
> > >               pause->rx_pause = rsp->rx_pause;
> > >               pause->tx_pause = rsp->tx_pause;
> > >       }