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: <CALs4sv3Wm+oNVZcnWScEk0f3zfLcnApn90iTPt0kSvhuzjXk1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Mar 2022 11:40:40 +0530
From:   Pavan Chebbi <pavan.chebbi@...adcom.com>
To:     Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>
Cc:     Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: bnxt_ptp: fix compilation error

On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 11:14 AM Damien Le Moal
<damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

Would it not be better if we add a check only to validate the
ptp_find_pin is not returning -1
explicitly? TSIO_PIN_VALID validates just the MAX side. So I think
adding a check for -1 only
is valid and won't duplicate the code inside the two functions.

>
> >
> >>                         break;
> >>
> >>                 rc = bnxt_ptp_cfg_pin(bp, pin_id, BNXT_PPS_PIN_PPS_OUT);
> >> --
> >> 2.35.1
> >>
>
>
> --
> Damien Le Moal
> Western Digital Research

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4209 bytes)