netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v7 3/5] eea: probe the netdevice and create adminq

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: <4bd71307-fec6-4a73-8b06-dc270a2c705f@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 09:48:36 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Wen Gu <guwen@...ux.alibaba.com>,
 Philo Lu <lulie@...ux.alibaba.com>, Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>,
 Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>,
 Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...hat.com>,
 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
 Vivian Wang <wangruikang@...as.ac.cn>,
 Troy Mitchell <troy.mitchell@...ux.spacemit.com>,
 Dust Li <dust.li@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 3/5] eea: probe the netdevice and create
 adminq

On 10/16/25 1:06 PM, Xuan Zhuo wrote:
> +int eea_adminq_destroy_q(struct eea_net *enet, u32 qidx, int num)
> +{
> +	struct device *dev = enet->edev->dma_dev;
> +	dma_addr_t dma_addr;
> +	__le16 *buf;
> +	int i, err;
> +	u32 size;
> +
> +	if (qidx == 0 && num == -1)
> +		return eea_adminq_exec(enet, EEA_AQ_CMD_QUEUE_DESTROY_ALL,
> +				       NULL, 0, NULL, 0);
> +
> +	size = sizeof(__le16) * num;
> +	buf = dma_alloc_coherent(dev, size, &dma_addr, GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!buf)
> +		return -ENOMEM;

AFAICS all the callers of this function use num == -1 argument, why is
this other case needed? I guess it could land in a follow-up actually
using it.

Requiring memory allocation to perform cleanup operation is dangerous:
it may fail under memory pressure, making the memory pressure even worse.

You could instead pre-allocate the buffer at initialization time.

Otherwise LGTM,

Thanks,

Paolo