On Sat, Sep 05, 2015 at 01:11:51PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > Le 09/05/15 12:47, Andrew Lunn a écrit : > > On Sat, Sep 05, 2015 at 02:44:01PM -0500, Michael Welling wrote: > >> On Sat, Sep 05, 2015 at 09:18:40PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > >>> On Sat, Sep 05, 2015 at 01:01:29PM -0500, Michael Welling wrote: > >>>> The function phy_connect_direct can possibly return a positive > >>>> return code. Using ERR_PTR with a positive value can lead to > >>>> deferencing of an invalid pointer. > >>> > >>> Is this the correct fix? Would it not be better to find where the > >>> positive return code is from and fix that? > >> > >> I guess I can trace it back to find out where the positive return code > >> is originating. > >> > >> Is phy_connect_direct always supposed to return valid -errno? > > > > I would look at this from a different angle. A positive ERRNO is > > probably a bug of some sort. So rather than papering over the cracks, > > go find what the real issue is. > > Agreed, you could place a WARN_ON(rc > 0) and get the offending call > trace leading to that problem. I suspect that one of the PHY drivers > might be returning a positive value as part of a phy_read() call and > that does not get properly filtered out. >
Thanks for the feedback. Does it hurt to always have a warning on positive return codes before using ERR_PTR? > > > > It might not be an ERRNO. E.g. https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/3/534 > > fixed a bug where a positive value is returned which is not an > > indication of an error. > > > > Andrew > > > -- > Florian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
