Hi Russell, Russell King - ARM Linux <li...@armlinux.org.uk> wrote on Mon, 3 Dec 2018 00:36:23 +0000:
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 08:35:09PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > Hi Russell, > > > > Russell King - ARM Linux <li...@armlinux.org.uk> wrote on Fri, 30 Nov > > 2018 19:00:31 +0000: > > > > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 03:47:37PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > > > So far the PHY ->xlate() callback was checking if the port was > > > > "invalid" before continuing, meaning that the port has not been used > > > > yet. This check is not correct as there is no opposite call to > > > > ->xlate() once the PHY is released by the user and the port will > > > > remain "valid" after the first phy_get()/phy_put() calls. Hence, if > > > > this driver is built as a module, inserted, removed and inserted > > > > again, the PHY will appear busy and the second probe will fail. > > > > > > > > To fix this, just drop the faulty check and instead verify that the > > > > port number is valid (ie. in the possible range). > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.ray...@bootlin.com> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/phy/marvell/phy-mvebu-cp110-comphy.c | 4 ++-- > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/phy/marvell/phy-mvebu-cp110-comphy.c > > > > b/drivers/phy/marvell/phy-mvebu-cp110-comphy.c > > > > index 31b9a1c18345..a40b876ff214 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/phy/marvell/phy-mvebu-cp110-comphy.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/phy/marvell/phy-mvebu-cp110-comphy.c > > > > @@ -567,9 +567,9 @@ static struct phy *mvebu_comphy_xlate(struct device > > > > *dev, > > > > return phy; > > > > > > > > lane = phy_get_drvdata(phy); > > > > - if (lane->port >= 0) > > > > - return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY); > > > > lane->port = args->args[0]; > > > > + if (lane->port >= MVEBU_COMPHY_PORTS) > > > > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > > > > > > Shouldn't we validate args->args[0] before doing anything? > > > > > > > I don't understand your point, there is a check on args->args[0] as > > we check its value (through lane->port) right after. What do you > > have in mind? > > Right, there is already a check on args->args[0] for it being greater > than MVEBU_COMPHY_PORTS and returning an error (and in fact warning > if that is the case). So in that case, what is the use of the above > additional test you are proposing to add? The resulting code ends up > looking like this: > > if (WARN_ON(args->args[0] >= MVEBU_COMPHY_PORTS)) > return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > ... > lane->port = args->args[0]; > + if (lane->port >= MVEBU_COMPHY_PORTS) > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > > which is just silly - the second test can never be evaluated as true, > and therefore is redundant. > > In any case, my point was that in your patch, where you assign > lane->port and then validate the lane->port value, this is in > principle the wrong order - the order should always be: validate > first, then make use. > You are right, this test is redundant; I forgot about the first check. I will just drop these additional two lines and just do: [...] lane->port = args->args[0]; return 0; } Thanks, Miquèl