[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACKFLi=WycRNcVu4xcxRE2X3_F=gRsWd+-Rr8k1M4P_k-6VwZg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2026 09:40:03 -0800
From: Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>
To: Pavan Chebbi <pavan.chebbi@...adcom.com>
Cc: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>,
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>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>, Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>,
Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] bnxt_en: Fix NULL pointer crash in bnxt_ptp_enable
during error cleanup
On Mon, Jan 5, 2026 at 7:51 AM Pavan Chebbi <pavan.chebbi@...adcom.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2026 at 6:59 PM Russell King (Oracle)
> <linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Second, __bnxt_hwrm_ptp_qcfg() calls bnxt_ptp_clear() if
> > bp->hwrm_spec_code < 0x10801 || !BNXT_CHIP_P5_PLUS(bp) is true or
> > hwrm_req_init() fails. Is it really possible that we have the PTP
> > clock registered when PTP isn't supported?
>
> Right, this check may not make much sense because we call
> __bnxt_hwrm_ptp_qcfg() only after we know PTP is supported.
> Michael may tell better but I think we could improve by removing that check.
>
Some older FW may advertise support for PTP using an older scheme that
the driver does not support. The FW running on an older class of
chips may also advertise support for PTP and it's also not supported
by the driver. In the former case, if FW is downgraded, the test may
become true.
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (5469 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists