linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: Fix different base types in assignments and parameters

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 2 Aug 2021 17:05:05 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: Fix different base types in
 assignments and parameters

On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 08:14:52PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> Fix sparse warnings of different base types in assignments
> and in passing function parameters.

This patch fixes some endian bugs but it's not mentioned at all in the
commit message.  Did you send to the correct patch?

> 
> Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_br_ext.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_br_ext.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_br_ext.c
> index e00302137a60..31ca2e548555 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_br_ext.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_br_ext.c
> @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ static inline int __nat25_add_pppoe_tag(struct sk_buff *skb, struct pppoe_tag *t
>  	struct pppoe_hdr *ph = (struct pppoe_hdr *)(skb->data + ETH_HLEN);
>  	int data_len;
>  
> -	data_len = tag->tag_len + TAG_HDR_LEN;
> +	data_len = be16_to_cpu(tag->tag_len) + TAG_HDR_LEN;
>  	if (skb_tailroom(skb) < data_len) {
>  		_DEBUG_ERR("skb_tailroom() failed in add SID tag!\n");
>  		return -1;
> @@ -134,42 +134,68 @@ static inline void __nat25_generate_ipv4_network_addr(unsigned char *networkAddr
>  }
>  
>  static inline void __nat25_generate_ipx_network_addr_with_node(unsigned char *networkAddr,
> -				unsigned int *ipxNetAddr, unsigned char *ipxNodeAddr)
> +				__be32 *ipxNetAddr, unsigned char *ipxNodeAddr)
>  {
> +	union {
> +                unsigned int f0;
> +                unsigned char f1[IPX_NODE_LEN];

What is going on here??  Why is f1 six bytes?

> +        } addr;
> +
>  	memset(networkAddr, 0, MAX_NETWORK_ADDR_LEN);
>  
>  	networkAddr[0] = NAT25_IPX;
> -	memcpy(networkAddr+1, (unsigned char *)ipxNetAddr, 4);
> +	addr.f0 = be32_to_cpu(*ipxNetAddr);
> +	memcpy(networkAddr+1, addr.f1, 4);

What's the point of a union?  memcpy() doesn't care about endian
anotations.

>  	memcpy(networkAddr+5, ipxNodeAddr, 6);
>  }
>  
>  static inline void __nat25_generate_ipx_network_addr_with_socket(unsigned char *networkAddr,
> -				unsigned int *ipxNetAddr, unsigned short *ipxSocketAddr)
> +				__be32 *ipxNetAddr, __be16 *ipxSocketAddr)
>  {
> +	union {
> +		unsigned int f0;
> +		unsigned char f1[4];
> +	} addr;
> +
>  	memset(networkAddr, 0, MAX_NETWORK_ADDR_LEN);
>  
>  	networkAddr[0] = NAT25_IPX;
> -	memcpy(networkAddr+1, (unsigned char *)ipxNetAddr, 4);
> -	memcpy(networkAddr+5, (unsigned char *)ipxSocketAddr, 2);
> +	addr.f0 = be32_to_cpu(*ipxNetAddr);
> +	memcpy(networkAddr+1, addr.f1, 4);
> +	addr.f0 ^= addr.f0;

What on earth????

> +	addr.f0 = be16_to_cpu(*ipxSocketAddr);

I'm so puzzled.

> +	memcpy(networkAddr+5, addr.f1, 2);

This patch is really weird so I'm done reviewing it.

regards,
dan carpenter