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

[Neftin, Sasha]

On 7/10/2023 03:55, Yu Hao wrote:
> I think u16 phy_data = 0 would not hurt us.
> Let me submit a patch which just initializes u16 phy_data = 0.
Good.
> Yu Hao
>
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 8:47 AM Neftin, Sasha <sasha.neftin@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >    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" :