netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net: lan966x: enforce phy-mode presence

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: <29a8a01e-48be-4057-a382-e75e68f00cf0@lunn.ch>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2025 23:02:12 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Rosen Penev <rosenp@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>,
	"maintainer:MICROCHIP LAN966X ETHERNET DRIVER" <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: lan966x: enforce phy-mode presence

On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 01:38:34PM -0700, Rosen Penev wrote:
> The documentation for lan966x states that phy-mode is a required
> property but the code does not enforce this. Add an error check.
> 
> Fixes: db8bcaad5393 ("net: lan966x: add the basic lan966x driver")
> Signed-off-by: Rosen Penev <rosenp@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c
> index 7001584f1b7a..5d28710f4fd2 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c
> @@ -1199,6 +1199,9 @@ static int lan966x_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  			continue;
>  
>  		phy_mode = fwnode_get_phy_mode(portnp);
> +		if (phy_mode)
> +			goto cleanup_ports;

I think a dev_err_probe() would be good here to give a clue why the
interfce failed to prove.


    Andrew

---
pw-bot: cr