Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 5 Feb 2024 10:44:34 +0100 | From | Horatiu Vultur <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH net] lan966x: Fix crash when adding interface under a lag |
| |
The 02/05/2024 09:44, Michal Swiatkowski wrote:
Hi Michal,
> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 09:07:56AM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote: > > There is a crash when adding one of the lan966x interfaces under a lag > > interface. The issue can be reproduced like this: > > ip link add name bond0 type bond miimon 100 mode balance-xor > > ip link set dev eth0 master bond0 > > > > The reason is because when adding a interface under the lag it would go > > through all the ports and try to figure out which other ports are under > > that lag interface. And the issue is that lan966x can have ports that are > > NULL pointer as they are not probed. So then iterating over these ports > > it would just crash as they are NULL pointers. > > The fix consists in actually checking for NULL pointers before accessing > > something from the ports. Like we do in other places. > > > > Fixes: cabc9d49333d ("net: lan966x: Add lag support for lan966x") > > Signed-off-by: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com> > > --- > > drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_lag.c | 9 +++++++-- > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_lag.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_lag.c > > index 41fa2523d91d3..89a2c3176f1da 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_lag.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_lag.c > > @@ -37,19 +37,24 @@ static void lan966x_lag_set_aggr_pgids(struct lan966x *lan966x) > > > > /* Now, set PGIDs for each active LAG */ > > for (lag = 0; lag < lan966x->num_phys_ports; ++lag) { > > - struct net_device *bond = lan966x->ports[lag]->bond; > > + struct lan966x_port *port = lan966x->ports[lag]; > > int num_active_ports = 0; > > + struct net_device *bond; > > unsigned long bond_mask; > > u8 aggr_idx[16]; > > > > - if (!bond || (visited & BIT(lag))) > > + if (!port || !port->bond || (visited & BIT(lag))) > > continue; > > > > + bond = lan966x->ports[lag]->bond; > Why not bond = port->bond?
That is also correct and more clear. I think I just copy the line that I have removed and put it here. As it has the same effect. I can update this in the next version.
> > > bond_mask = lan966x_lag_get_mask(lan966x, bond); > > > > for_each_set_bit(p, &bond_mask, lan966x->num_phys_ports) { > > struct lan966x_port *port = lan966x->ports[p]; > > > > + if (!port) > > + continue; > > + > > lan_wr(ANA_PGID_PGID_SET(bond_mask), > > lan966x, ANA_PGID(p)); > > if (port->lag_tx_active) > > -- > > 2.34.1 > > > Only nit, otherwise: > Reviewed-by: Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@linux.intel.com> > > Thanks, > Michal
-- /Horatiu
| |