linux-kernel - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] ethernet: e1000e: Fix possible uninit bug

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: <9fff2b17-0b66-93a0-87aa-ca6479cb0663@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 5 Jul 2023 18:47:26 +0300
From:   "Neftin, Sasha" <sasha.neftin@...el.com>
To:     Yu Hao <yhao016@....edu>, <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
        <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Ruinskiy, Dima" <dima.ruinskiy@...el.com>,
        "Edri, Michael" <michael.edri@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] ethernet: e1000e: Fix possible uninit
 bug

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@....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" :