Re: [PATCH net-next v19 06/10] net: phy: phy_port: Store information about a port's upstream

[Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com>]

Hi Paolo,

On 10/21/26 11:24, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On 10/19/26 15:33, netdev-bot+sashiko@kernel.org wrote:
>> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential
>> issue(s) to consider.
>>
>> Critical: 0 · High: 1 · Medium: 0 · Low: 1
>>
>> If you believe none of the issues are legitimate, please reply to each
>> issue of Medium severity or higher and explain why the AI is wrong.
>> If any of them are legitimate and you plan to respin, please let patchwork
>> know by including "pw-bot: cr" as a separate line at the end of your reply
>> (one such reply per series is enough).
>>
>> - [High] net: phy: UAF in upstream_port when connect_phy fails
> 
> I think this concern has not been reported nor answered in previous
> revision?

Well it's been reported as low on v17, but this issue isn't correct from
what I see from the bot's analysis. The bus->phydev pointer is correctly
cleared, and for the upstream_port part, it's also not correct. the case
explained in the report can't happen :(

> Same for the ops-lock related in the next patch.

So for the ops-lock, for now we simply don't use phy_port when using ops-lock,
and there's a separate series that has been sent that addresses the ops-lock
crash when phylink_create is called prior to the netdev ops being set :

https://lore.kernel.org/r/20261008022656.3592191-1-mmyangfl@gmail.com

> 
> I understand that the high prio comment on patch 9 still relates to
> PHY-in-SFP unbinding and should be addressed separately, am I correct?

Yes indeed :)

> 
> The problem is that the net-next PR should be coming very soon and
> the backlog is still very long, we need a fast clear-cut.

Sorry I didn't aswer sashiko's feedback sooner, it's getting a bit
overwhelming sifting through these, and when I tell sashiko that an
issue isn't correct on vXX, it comes back with a similar comment on
vXX+1, with a different severity :(

I understand your point as a maintainer though, I'll make sure I reply
faster :(

I've done my best to test this series in and out on various HW, including
the MAC -> PHY -> PHY setup that sashiko is concerned about, and I did
not reproduce its reports.

Maxime
> 
> /P