netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 03/17] net: stmmac: use correct type for tx_lpi

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: <Z30WmPpMp_BRgrOI@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2025 11:57:12 +0000
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
	Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
	Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 03/17] net: stmmac: use correct type for
 tx_lpi_timer

On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 11:28:51AM +0000, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 12:24:58PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > The ethtool interface uses u32 for tx_lpi_timer, and so does phylib.
> > Use u32 to store this internally within stmmac rather than "int"
> > which could misinterpret large values.
> > 
> > Since eee_timer is used to initialise priv->tx_lpi_timer, this also
> > should be unsigned to avoid a negative number being interpreted as a
> > very large positive number.
> > 
> > Also correct "value" in dwmac4_set_eee_lpi_entry_timer() to use u32
> > rather than int, which is derived from tx_lpi_timer, even though
> > masking with STMMAC_ET_MAX will truncate the sign bits. u32 is the
> > value argument type for writel().
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
> 
> ...
> 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c
> > index 9a9169ca7cd2..b0ef439b715b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c
> > @@ -111,8 +111,8 @@ static const u32 default_msg_level = (NETIF_MSG_DRV | NETIF_MSG_PROBE |
> >  				      NETIF_MSG_IFDOWN | NETIF_MSG_TIMER);
> >  
> >  #define STMMAC_DEFAULT_LPI_TIMER	1000
> > -static int eee_timer = STMMAC_DEFAULT_LPI_TIMER;
> > -module_param(eee_timer, int, 0644);
> > +static unsigned int eee_timer = STMMAC_DEFAULT_LPI_TIMER;
> > +module_param(eee_timer, uint, 0644);
> >  MODULE_PARM_DESC(eee_timer, "LPI tx expiration time in msec");
> >  #define STMMAC_LPI_T(x) (jiffies + usecs_to_jiffies(x))
> >  
> 
> Hi Russell,
> 
> now that eee_timer is unsigned the following check in stmmac_verify_args()
> can never be true. I guess it should be removed.
> 
>         if (eee_timer < 0)
>                 eee_timer = STMMAC_DEFAULT_LPI_TIMER;
> 

Thanks for finding that. The parameter description doesn't seem to
detail whether this is intentional behaviour or not, or whether it is
"because someone used int and we shouldn't have negative values here".

I can't see why someone would pass a negative number for eee_timer
given that it already defaults to STMMAC_DEFAULT_LPI_TIMER.

So, I'm tempted to remove this.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!