linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] e1000: drop checksum constant cast to u16 in comparisons

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: <20250625121932.GC1562@horms.kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 13:19:32 +0100
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Jacek Kowalski <jacek@...ekk.info>
Cc: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
	Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] e1000: drop checksum constant cast to u16 in
 comparisons

On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 01:18:28PM +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 09:29:43PM +0200, Jacek Kowalski wrote:
> 
> Hi Jacek,
> 
> Thanks for the patchset.
> 
> Some feedback at a high level:
> 
> 1. It's normal for patch-sets, to have a cover letter.
>    That provides a handy place for high level comments,
>    perhaps ironically, such as this one.
> 
> 2. Please provide some text in the patch description.
>    I know these changes are trivial. But we'd like to have something there.
>    E.g.
> 
>    Remove unnecessary cast of constants to u16,
>    allowing the C type system to do it's thing.
> 
>    No behavioural change intended.
>    Compile tested only.
> 
> 3. This patchset should probably be targeted at iwl-next, like this:
> 
> 	Subject: [PATCH iwl-next] ...
> 
> 4. Please make sure the patchset applies cleanly to it's target tree.
>    It seems that in it's current form the patchset doesn't
>    apply to iwl-next or net-next.
> 
> 5. It's up to you. But in general there is no need
>    to CC linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org on Networking patches
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Jacek Kowalski <Jacek@...ekk.info>
> > Suggested-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
> 
> As for this patch itself, it looks good to me.
> But I think you missed two.
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_hw.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_hw.c
> index b5a31e8d84f4..0e5de52b1067 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_hw.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_hw.c
> @@ -3997,7 +3997,7 @@ s32 e1000_update_eeprom_checksum(struct e1000_hw *hw)
>  		}
>  		checksum += eeprom_data;
>  	}
> -	checksum = (u16)EEPROM_SUM - checksum;
> +	checksum = EEPROM_SUM - checksum;
>  	if (e1000_write_eeprom(hw, EEPROM_CHECKSUM_REG, 1, &checksum) < 0) {
>  		e_dbg("EEPROM Write Error\n");
>  		return -E1000_ERR_EEPROM;
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/nvm.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/nvm.c
> index 1c9071396b3c..556dbefdcef9 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/nvm.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/nvm.c
> @@ -588,7 +588,7 @@ s32 e1000e_update_nvm_checksum_generic(struct e1000_hw *hw)
>  		}
>  		checksum += nvm_data;
>  	}
> -	checksum = (u16)NVM_SUM - checksum;
> +	checksum = NVM_SUM - checksum;
>  	ret_val = e1000_write_nvm(hw, NVM_CHECKSUM_REG, 1, &checksum);
>  	if (ret_val)
>  		e_dbg("NVM Write Error while updating checksum.\n");

Sorry, I now see that the 2nd of the two hunks above is for patch 2/4.