netdev - RE: [PATCH] qed: fix uninitialized data in aRFS intrastructure

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:   Thu, 11 May 2017 14:03:22 +0000
From:   "Mintz, Yuval" <Yuval.Mintz@...ium.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] qed: fix uninitialized data in aRFS intrastructure

> register, which went subtly wrong due to the wrong size in a memset():
> 
> ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_init_fw_funcs.c: In function
> 'qed_set_rfs_mode_disable':
> ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_init_fw_funcs.c:993:3: error: '*((void
> *)&ramline+4)' is used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=uninitialized]
> 
> This removes the silly loop and memset, and instead directly writes the
> correct value to the register.

Hi Arnd,

For the most part - I'm almost all in favor of this change.
But just to make it clear - the actual fix could have been a one-liner, right?
The rest are style changes.

> +#define CAM_REG(pf_id) (PRS_REG_GFT_CAM + CAM_LINE_SIZE * (pf_id))
> +#define RAM_REG(pf_id) (PRS_REG_GFT_PROFILE_MASK_RAM +

Not sure I'm a huge fan of this specific style change;
Seems like we could easily manage without these macros.