netdev - Re: [PATCH 5/5] net: ch9200: avoid triggering NWay restart on non-zero PHY ID

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: <aBJkh5q_W1xVuv4U@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2025 18:57:27 +0100
From: Qasim Ijaz <qasdev00@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
	horms@...nel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	syzbot+3361c2d6f78a3e0892f9@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
	stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] net: ch9200: avoid triggering NWay restart on
 non-zero PHY ID

On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 04:22:59PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 11:13:12AM +0100, Qasim Ijaz wrote:
> > Hi Andrew, Jakub
> > 
> > Just pinging on my last message. Any thoughts on how to proceed with
> > this patch series, I left my thoughts in the previous message.
> 
> I would suggest you do the minimum, low risk changes. Don't be driven
> to fix all the syzbot warnings just to make syzbot quiet. What really
> matters is you don't break the driver for users. syzbot is secondary.
> 

Right, got it so avoid breaking it at all costs, in that case should we move
forward with the syzbot fix and the "remove extraneous return that
prevents error propagation" patches only? 

For the syzbot one we will return a negative on control read failure,
as the function already does that when encountering an invalid phy_id.

As for the "remove extraneous return that prevents error 
propagation" change it seems like a simple low risk change 
from what I can tell (if not please let me know).

Would you guys be happy with this?

Thanks
Qasim
> 	Andrew