netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: realtek: make sure paged read is protected by mutex

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <32c342ef-62e8-4d85-8451-cfbb6024d869@lunn.ch>
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2024 16:20:07 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>
Cc: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
	"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
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: realtek: make sure paged read is
 protected by mutex

On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 11:02:13PM +0100, Daniel Golle wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 11:25:29PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 04:52:04PM +0100, Daniel Golle wrote:
> > > As we cannot rely on phy_read_paged function before the PHY is
> > > identified, the paged read in rtlgen_supports_2_5gbps needs to be open
> > > coded as it is being called by the match_phy_device function, ie. before
> > > .read_page and .write_page have been populated.
> > > 
> > > Make sure it is also protected by the MDIO bus mutex and use
> > > rtl821x_write_page instead of 3 individually locked MDIO bus operations.
> > 
> > match_phy_device() as far as i know, is only used during bus probe,
> > when trying to match a driver to a device. What are you trying to lock
> > against during probe?
> 
> The idea is to reduce the amount of unnecessary lock/unlock cycles (1 vs
> 3). Of course, we could just omit locking entirely here, but that seemed
> a bit wild to me, and even if it would work in that specific case, it
> just serve as a bad example.

I would just comment the requirement that it can only be used during
probe, and remove all the locks.

	Andrew