netdev - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] ethernet: e1000e: Fix possible uninit bug

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: Sun, 9 Jul 2023 17:55:22 -0700
From: Yu Hao <yhao016@....edu>
To: "Neftin, Sasha" <sasha.neftin@...el.com>
Cc: jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com, 
	davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, 
	intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Ruinskiy, Dima" <dima.ruinskiy@...el.com>, 
	"Edri, Michael" <michael.edri@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] ethernet: e1000e: Fix possible uninit bug

I think u16 phy_data = 0 would not hurt us.
Let me submit a patch which just initializes u16 phy_data = 0.

Yu Hao

On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 8:47 AM Neftin, Sasha <sasha.neftin@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/5/2023 03:10, Yu Hao wrote:
> > The variable phy_data should be initialized in function e1e_rphy.
> > However, there is not return value check, which means there is a
> > possible uninit read later for the variable.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yu Hao <yhao016@....edu>
> > ---
> >   drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c | 5 ++++-
> >   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
> > b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
> > index 771a3c909c45..455af5e55cc6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
> > @@ -6910,8 +6910,11 @@ static int __e1000_resume(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> >      /* report the system wakeup cause from S3/S4 */
> >      if (adapter->flags2 & FLAG2_HAS_PHY_WAKEUP) {
> >          u16 phy_data;
> > +       s32 ret_val;
>
> why just not initialize u16 phy_data = 0? How did it hurt us? (legacy)
>
> >
> > -       e1e_rphy(&adapter->hw, BM_WUS, &phy_data);
> > +       ret_val = e1e_rphy(&adapter->hw, BM_WUS, &phy_data);
> > +       if (ret_val)
> > +           return ret_val;
> >          if (phy_data) {
> >              e_info("PHY Wakeup cause - %s\n",
> >                     phy_data & E1000_WUS_EX ? "Unicast Packet" :
>