linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] staging: r8188eu: restricted _

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]

Message-ID: <YTCYodihc/U/StOw@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Sep 2021 11:25:53 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Aakash Hemadri <aakashhemadri123@...il.com>
Cc:     Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
        Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] staging: r8188eu: restricted __be16 degrades to
 int

On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 04:40:44PM +0530, Aakash Hemadri wrote:
> Fix sparse warning:
> > rtw_br_ext.c:73:23: warning: restricted __be16 degrades to integer
> 
> Here tag->tag_len is be16, use be16_to_cpu()
> 
> Signed-off-by: Aakash Hemadri <aakashhemadri123@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_br_ext.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_br_ext.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_br_ext.c
> index 62a672243696..aa56cd1a8490 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_br_ext.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_br_ext.c
> @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ static int __nat25_add_pppoe_tag(struct sk_buff *skb, struct pppoe_tag *tag)
>  	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;
> -- 
> 2.32.0
> 

If this change happens, that means the existing driver does not work at
all on little-endian machines today?  But that seems odd and wrong, are
you sure this change is correct?

How did you test this?

thanks,

greg k-h