netdev - Re: [PATCH ethtool v2 08/13] ethtool: fix runtime errors found by sanitizers

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 9 Dec 2022 09:42:59 -0800
From:   Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
To:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
CC:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ethtool v2 08/13] ethtool: fix runtime errors found by
 sanitizers

On 12/7/2022 10:34 PM, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 05:11:17PM -0800, Jesse Brandeburg wrote:

>> -	INTR			= (1 << 31),
>> +	INTR			= (1UL << 31),
>>   	PCSINT			= (1 << 28),
>>   	LCINT			= (1 << 27),
>>   	APINT5			= (1 << 26),
> 
> While the signedness issue only directly affects only INTR value,
> I would rather prefer to keep the code consistent and fix the whole enum.
> Also, as you intend to introduce the BIT() macro in the series anyway,
> wouldn't it be cleaner to move this patch after the UAPI update and use
> BIT() instead?

I had done it this way to separate the "most minimal fix" from the 
"refactor", as I figure that is a clearer way to delineate changes. 
Also, this specifically addresses the issues found by the undefined 
behavior sanitizer.

I'll do it whichever way you like, but you're correct, later in this 
series I fix up all the BIT() usages. Maybe we can just leave this patch 
as is, knowing the full fix comes during the refactor in 10/13 ?