Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 10 Jul 2023 10:55:35 +0300 | Subject | Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] ethernet: e1000e: Fix possible uninit bug | From | "Neftin, Sasha" <> |
| |
On 7/10/2023 03:55, Yu Hao wrote: > I think u16 phy_data = 0 would not hurt us. > Let me submit a patch which just initializes u16 phy_data = 0. Good. > > Yu Hao > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 8:47 AM Neftin, Sasha <sasha.neftin@intel.com> wrote: >> >> On 7/5/2023 03:10, Yu Hao wrote: >>> The variable phy_data should be initialized in function e1e_rphy. >>> However, there is not return value check, which means there is a >>> possible uninit read later for the variable. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Yu Hao <yhao016@ucr.edu> >>> --- >>> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c | 5 ++++- >>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c >>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c >>> index 771a3c909c45..455af5e55cc6 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c >>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c >>> @@ -6910,8 +6910,11 @@ static int __e1000_resume(struct pci_dev *pdev) >>> /* report the system wakeup cause from S3/S4 */ >>> if (adapter->flags2 & FLAG2_HAS_PHY_WAKEUP) { >>> u16 phy_data; >>> + s32 ret_val; >> >> why just not initialize u16 phy_data = 0? How did it hurt us? (legacy) >> >>> >>> - e1e_rphy(&adapter->hw, BM_WUS, &phy_data); >>> + ret_val = e1e_rphy(&adapter->hw, BM_WUS, &phy_data); >>> + if (ret_val) >>> + return ret_val; >>> if (phy_data) { >>> e_info("PHY Wakeup cause - %s\n", >>> phy_data & E1000_WUS_EX ? "Unicast Packet" : >>
| |