Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:02:30 -0400 | From | Stephen Hemminger <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sky2: avoid using uninitialized variable |
| |
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 17:34:00 -0700 Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Stephen Hemminger > <shemminger@vyatta.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 14:21:59 -0700 > > Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com> wrote: > > > >> I am not sure if 0 or ~0 would be a better choice in the gm_phy_read() > >> error case. I used 0. A more complete solution might be to plumb up > >> error handling to the callers of gm_phy_read(). > >> > >> == > >> From 37486219a3d93881f3b2619a4b2bb21be62db7d4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > >> From: Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com> > >> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 14:09:07 -0700 > >> Subject: [PATCH] sky2: avoid using uninitialized variable > >> > >> Prior to this change gm_phy_read() could return an uninitialized > >> variable if __gm_phy_read() failed. > >> > >> This change returns zero in the failure case. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com> > > > > Shouldn't the callers be changed to check rather than just returning > > 0 and masking the problem. > > I agree that the right long term solution is to plumb the error > handling up through the callers. This would involve deleting the > error-free gm_phy_read() routine and replacing all calls to it with > calls to error-capable __gm_phy_read(). This would require converting > several routines from returning void to returning int allowing errors > to propagate upwards. Notable affected routines include: > sky2_phy_power_up(), sky2_wol_init(), sky2_phy_power_down(), > sky2_hw_down(), sky2_mac_init(), sky2_hw_up(), sky2_phy_intr(), > sky2_led(). sky2_restart() would likely have to re-queue the work > item in the case of failure. Presumably sky2_poll() would return 0 if > error is seen. On a related note, it also seems that gm_phy_write() > callers should be checking its return value to also handle the same > class of I/O errors. Testing these changes would involve injecting > error values or access to certain kinds of broken hardware.
In my experience if phy reads once successfully, it is going to read every time. If there is a problem it only happens on the first access (powered off, bad timing, etc).
> For the short term I figured that not consuming random data was a step > in right direction. But I understand if you prefer to hold out for > the complete solution. Unfortunately, I do not currently have time to > contribute to the complete solution.
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |