netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] net: bnxt_ptp: fix compilation error

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: <2bc8f270-e402-5e34-8d87-6b02fe8ef777@opensource.wdc.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Mar 2022 14:44:53 +0900
From:   Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>
To:     Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Pavan Chebbi <pavan.chebbi@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: bnxt_ptp: fix compilation error

On 3/28/22 14:36, Michael Chan wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 8:35 PM Damien Le Moal
> <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com> wrote:
>>
>> The Broadcom bnxt_ptp driver does not compile with GCC 11.2.2 when
>> CONFIG_WERROR is enabled. The following error is generated:
>>
>> drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_ptp.c: In function ‘bnxt_ptp_enable’:
>> drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_ptp.c:400:43: error: array
>> subscript 255 is above array bounds of ‘struct pps_pin[4]’
>> [-Werror=array-bounds]
>>   400 |  ptp->pps_info.pins[pin_id].event = BNXT_PPS_EVENT_EXTERNAL;
>>       |  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~
>> In file included from drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_ptp.c:20:
>> drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_ptp.h:75:24: note: while
>> referencing ‘pins’
>>    75 |         struct pps_pin pins[BNXT_MAX_TSIO_PINS];
>>       |                        ^~~~
>> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
>>
>> This is due to the function ptp_find_pin() returning a pin ID of -1 when
>> a valid pin is not found and this error never being checked.
>> Use the TSIO_PIN_VALID() macroin bnxt_ptp_enable() to check the result
>> of the calls to ptp_find_pin() in bnxt_ptp_enable() to fix this
>> compilation error.
>>
>> Fixes: 9e518f25802c ("bnxt_en: 1PPS functions to configure TSIO pins")
>> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>
>> ---
>> Changes from v1:
>> * No need to change the TSIO_PIN_VALID() macro as pin_id is an unsigned
>>   value.
>>
>>  drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_ptp.c | 4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_ptp.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_ptp.c
>> index a0b321a19361..3c8fccbb9013 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_ptp.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_ptp.c
>> @@ -390,7 +390,7 @@ static int bnxt_ptp_enable(struct ptp_clock_info *ptp_info,
>>                 /* Configure an External PPS IN */
>>                 pin_id = ptp_find_pin(ptp->ptp_clock, PTP_PF_EXTTS,
>>                                       rq->extts.index);
>> -               if (!on)
>> +               if (!on || !TSIO_PIN_VALID(pin_id))
> 
> I think we need to return an error if !TSIO_PIN_VALID().  If we just
> break, we'll still use pin_id after the switch statement.
> 
>>                         break;
>>                 rc = bnxt_ptp_cfg_pin(bp, pin_id, BNXT_PPS_PIN_PPS_IN);
>>                 if (rc)
>> @@ -403,7 +403,7 @@ static int bnxt_ptp_enable(struct ptp_clock_info *ptp_info,
>>                 /* Configure a Periodic PPS OUT */
>>                 pin_id = ptp_find_pin(ptp->ptp_clock, PTP_PF_PEROUT,
>>                                       rq->perout.index);
>> -               if (!on)
>> +               if (!on || !TSIO_PIN_VALID(pin_id))
> 
> Same here.

The call to bnxt_ptp_cfg_pin() after the swith will return -ENOTSUPP for
invalid pin IDs. So I did not feel like adding more changes was necessary.

We can return an error if you insist, but what should it be ? -EINVAL ?
-ENODEV ? -ENOTSUPP ? Given that bnxt_ptp_cfg_pin() return -ENOTSUPP, we
could use that code.

> 
>>                         break;
>>
>>                 rc = bnxt_ptp_cfg_pin(bp, pin_id, BNXT_PPS_PIN_PPS_OUT);
>> --
>> 2.35.1
>>


-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research