lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Apr]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/1] drivers: net: cpsw: Prevent NUll pointer dereference with two PHYs
From
Date
On 04/19/2016 08:14 PM, David Rivshin (Allworx) wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 18:44:41 +0300
> Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> wrote:
>
>> On 04/19/2016 06:01 PM, David Rivshin (Allworx) wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 17:41:07 +0300
>>> Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 04/19/2016 04:56 PM, Andrew Goodbody wrote:
>>>>> Adding a 2nd PHY to cpsw results in a NULL pointer dereference
>>>>> as below. Fix by maintaining a reference to each PHY node in slave
>>>>> struct instead of a single reference in the priv struct which was
>>>>> overwritten by the 2nd PHY.
>>>>
>>>> David, Is it possible to drop prev version of this patch from linux-next
>>>> - it breaks boot on many TI boards with -next.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [ 17.870933] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000180
>>>>> [ 17.879557] pgd = dc8bc000
>>>>> [ 17.882514] [00000180] *pgd=9c882831, *pte=00000000, *ppte=00000000
>>>>> [ 17.889213] Internal error: Oops: 17 [#1] ARM
>>>>> [ 17.893838] Modules linked in:
>>>>> [ 17.897102] CPU: 0 PID: 1657 Comm: connmand Not tainted 4.5.0-ge463dfb-dirty #11
>>>>> [ 17.904947] Hardware name: Cambrionix whippet
>>>>> [ 17.909576] task: dc859240 ti: dc968000 task.ti: dc968000
>>>>> [ 17.915339] PC is at phy_attached_print+0x18/0x8c
>>>>> [ 17.920339] LR is at phy_attached_info+0x14/0x18
>>>>> [ 17.925247] pc : [<c042baec>] lr : [<c042bb74>] psr: 600f0113
>>>>> [ 17.925247] sp : dc969cf8 ip : dc969d28 fp : dc969d18
>>>>> [ 17.937425] r10: dda7a400 r9 : 00000000 r8 : 00000000
>>>>> [ 17.942971] r7 : 00000001 r6 : ddb00480 r5 : ddb8cb34 r4 : 00000000
>>>>> [ 17.949898] r3 : c0954cc0 r2 : c09562b0 r1 : 00000000 r0 : 00000000
>>>>> [ 17.956829] Flags: nZCv IRQs on FIQs on Mode SVC_32 ISA ARM Segment none
>>>>> [ 17.964401] Control: 10c5387d Table: 9c8bc019 DAC: 00000051
>>>>> [ 17.970500] Process connmand (pid: 1657, stack limit = 0xdc968210)
>>>>> [ 17.977059] Stack: (0xdc969cf8 to 0xdc96a000)
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> [ 18.323956] [<c05e4cb8>] (inet_ioctl) from [<c055f5ac>] (sock_ioctl+0x15c/0x2d8)
>>>>> [ 18.331829] [<c055f450>] (sock_ioctl) from [<c010b388>] (do_vfs_ioctl+0x98/0x8d0)
>>>>> [ 18.339765] r7:00008914 r6:dc8ab4c0 r5:dd257ae0 r4:beaeda20
>>>>> [ 18.345822] [<c010b2f0>] (do_vfs_ioctl) from [<c010bc34>] (SyS_ioctl+0x74/0x84)
>>>>> [ 18.353573] r10:00000000 r9:00000011 r8:beaeda20 r7:00008914 r6:dc8ab4c0 r5:dc8ab4c0
>>>>> [ 18.361924] r4:00000000
>>>>> [ 18.364653] [<c010bbc0>] (SyS_ioctl) from [<c00163e0>] (ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x3c)
>>>>> [ 18.372682] r9:dc968000 r8:c00165e8 r7:00000036 r6:00000002 r5:00000011 r4:00000000
>>>>> [ 18.380960] Code: e92dd810 e24cb010 e24dd010 e59b4004 (e5902180)
>>>>> [ 18.387580] ---[ end trace c80529466223f3f3 ]---
>>>>
>>>> ^ Could you make it shorter and drop timestamps, pls?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Goodbody <andrew.goodbody@cambrionix.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> v2 - Move allocation of memory for priv->slaves to inside cpsw_probe_dt so it
>>>>> has data->slaves initialised first which is needed to calculate size
>>>>>
>>>>> drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c | 30 +++++++++++++++---------------
>>>>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c
>>>>> index 42fdfd4..e62909c 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c
>>>>> @@ -349,6 +349,7 @@ struct cpsw_slave {
>>>>> struct cpsw_slave_data *data;
>>>>> struct phy_device *phy;
>>>>> struct net_device *ndev;
>>>>> + struct device_node *phy_node;
>>>>> u32 port_vlan;
>>>>> u32 open_stat;
>>>>> };
>>>>> @@ -367,7 +368,6 @@ struct cpsw_priv {
>>>>> spinlock_t lock;
>>>>> struct platform_device *pdev;
>>>>> struct net_device *ndev;
>>>>> - struct device_node *phy_node;
>>>>> struct napi_struct napi_rx;
>>>>> struct napi_struct napi_tx;
>>>>> struct device *dev;
>>>>> @@ -1148,8 +1148,8 @@ static void cpsw_slave_open(struct cpsw_slave *slave, struct cpsw_priv *priv)
>>>>> cpsw_ale_add_mcast(priv->ale, priv->ndev->broadcast,
>>>>> 1 << slave_port, 0, 0, ALE_MCAST_FWD_2);
>>>>>
>>>>> - if (priv->phy_node)
>>>>> - slave->phy = of_phy_connect(priv->ndev, priv->phy_node,
>>>>> + if (slave->phy_node)
>>>>> + slave->phy = of_phy_connect(priv->ndev, slave->phy_node,
>>>>> &cpsw_adjust_link, 0, slave->data->phy_if);
>>>>> else
>>>>> slave->phy = phy_connect(priv->ndev, slave->data->phy_id,
>>>>> @@ -1946,7 +1946,7 @@ static int cpsw_probe_dt(struct cpsw_priv *priv,
>>>>> struct device_node *node = pdev->dev.of_node;
>>>>> struct device_node *slave_node;
>>>>> struct cpsw_platform_data *data = &priv->data;
>>>>> - int i = 0, ret;
>>>>> + int i, ret;
>>>>> u32 prop;
>>>>>
>>>>> if (!node)
>>>>> @@ -1958,6 +1958,14 @@ static int cpsw_probe_dt(struct cpsw_priv *priv,
>>>>> }
>>>>> data->slaves = prop;
>>>>>
>>>>> + priv->slaves = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev,
>>>>> + sizeof(struct cpsw_slave) * data->slaves,
>>>>> + GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>> + if (!priv->slaves)
>>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>>>> + for (i = 0; i < data->slaves; i++)
>>>>> + priv->slaves[i].slave_num = i;
>>>>> +
>>>>> if (of_property_read_u32(node, "active_slave", &prop)) {
>>>>> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Missing active_slave property in the DT.\n");
>>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>>> @@ -2023,6 +2031,7 @@ static int cpsw_probe_dt(struct cpsw_priv *priv,
>>>>> if (ret)
>>>>> dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "Doesn't have any child node\n");
>>>>>
>>>>> + i = 0;
>>>>> for_each_child_of_node(node, slave_node) {
>>>>> struct cpsw_slave_data *slave_data = data->slave_data + i;
>>>>> const void *mac_addr = NULL;
>>>>> @@ -2033,7 +2042,8 @@ static int cpsw_probe_dt(struct cpsw_priv *priv,
>>>>> if (strcmp(slave_node->name, "slave"))
>>>>> continue;
>>>>>
>>>>> - priv->phy_node = of_parse_phandle(slave_node, "phy-handle", 0);
>>>>> + priv->slaves[i].phy_node =
>>>>> + of_parse_phandle(slave_node, "phy-handle", 0);
>>>>
>>>> i++?
>>>>
>>>> Ideally, the simplest way is to save phy_node in slave_data, but ...
>>>> (see comment below).
>>>
>>> FYI, I have a patch [1] that does exactly that in my queue. Sorry
>>> I've been busy and haven't had a chance to rebase/retest/resubmit
>>> since Nicolas gave his Tested-By (and I missed Andrew's original
>>> patch). I can probably steal some time to resurrect that quickly
>>> if it's preferred, just let me know.
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg357772.html
>>
>> Ah Ok. There are no user of cpsw_platform_data outside of net/ethernet/ti/,
>> so yes, looks like your patch 1 does exactly what's needed.
>
> Given that the v1 of Andrew's patch is already in Dave's net tree, and
> would obviously have many conflicts with mine, how should I proceed?
> Since you already requested Dave revert that patch, should I just wait
> for that to happen and then resubmit my series?
>
> Dave, Does that sound good to you?
>

May be you can send revert + your patch 1 (only fix for this issue).


Dave, Does that sound good to you?

--
regards,
-grygorii

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-04-19 21:01    [W:0.074 / U:0.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site