Messages in this thread | | | From | Yu Hao <> | Date | Sun, 9 Jul 2023 17:55:22 -0700 | Subject | Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] ethernet: e1000e: Fix possible uninit bug |
| |
I think u16 phy_data = 0 would not hurt us. Let me submit a patch which just initializes u16 phy_data = 0.
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" : >
| |