public inbox for netdev@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>
To: Agalakov Daniil <ade@amicon.ru>
Cc: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@lunn.ch>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	"Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@google.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	<intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <lvc-project@linuxtesting.org>,
	Daniil Iskhakov <dish@amicon.ru>, Roman Razov <rrv@amicon.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 3/3] e1000e: fix endianness conversion of uninitialized words
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2026 16:27:12 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <a70a49a0-43f8-4908-993a-50999bf0dfa8@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260318120512.687149-4-ade@amicon.ru>



On 3/18/2026 5:05 AM, Agalakov Daniil wrote:
> [Why]
> In e1000_set_eeprom(), the eeprom_buff is allocated to hold a range of
> words. However, only the boundary words (the first and the last) are
> populated from the EEPROM if the write request is not word-aligned.
> The words in the middle of the buffer remain uninitialized because they
> are intended to be completely overwritten by the new data via memcpy().
> 
> The previous implementation had a loop that performed le16_to_cpus()
> on the entire buffer. This resulted in endianness conversion being
> performed on uninitialized memory for all interior words.
> 
> Fix this by converting the endianness only for the boundary words
> immediately after they are successfully read from the EEPROM.
> 
> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.
> 
> Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")

AI Review reports:

The commit message cites the initial git repository commit 1da177e4c3f4
("Linux-2.6.12-rc2") from 2005 as the source of the bug. However, the
e1000e driver wasn't introduced until 2007 in commit bc7f75fa9788
("[E1000E]: New pci-express e1000 driver (currently for ICH9 devices
only)"). While the e1000 driver did have this bug pattern in the initial
commit, this patch fixes the e1000e driver, which is a separate driver.

Should the Fixes: tag reference bc7f75fa9788 instead, since that's when
the buggy pattern was first introduced in e1000e?

Also, the same comment from the e1000 patch applies here. I think this 
patch should be split like the e1000 ones with the return value going to 
*-net and the endian to *-next.

Thanks,
Tony


> Co-developed-by: Iskhakov Daniil <dish@amicon.ru>
> Signed-off-by: Iskhakov Daniil <dish@amicon.ru>
> Signed-off-by: Agalakov Daniil <ade@amicon.ru>
> ---
>   drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/ethtool.c | 19 ++++++++++++-------
>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/ethtool.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/ethtool.c
> index dbed30943ef4..a8b35ae41141 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/ethtool.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/ethtool.c
> @@ -583,20 +583,25 @@ static int e1000_set_eeprom(struct net_device *netdev,
>   		/* need read/modify/write of first changed EEPROM word */
>   		/* only the second byte of the word is being modified */
>   		ret_val = e1000_read_nvm(hw, first_word, 1, &eeprom_buff[0]);
> +		if (ret_val)
> +			goto out;
> +
> +		/* Device's eeprom is always little-endian, word addressable */
> +		le16_to_cpus(&eeprom_buff[0]);
> +
>   		ptr++;
>   	}
> -	if (((eeprom->offset + eeprom->len) & 1) && (!ret_val))
> +	if ((eeprom->offset + eeprom->len) & 1) {
>   		/* need read/modify/write of last changed EEPROM word */
>   		/* only the first byte of the word is being modified */
>   		ret_val = e1000_read_nvm(hw, last_word, 1,
>   					 &eeprom_buff[last_word - first_word]);
> +		if (ret_val)
> +			goto out;
>   
> -	if (ret_val)
> -		goto out;
> -
> -	/* Device's eeprom is always little-endian, word addressable */
> -	for (i = 0; i < last_word - first_word + 1; i++)
> -		le16_to_cpus(&eeprom_buff[i]);
> +		/* Device's eeprom is always little-endian, word addressable */
> +		le16_to_cpus(&eeprom_buff[last_word - first_word]);
> +	}
>   
>   	memcpy(ptr, bytes, eeprom->len);
>   


  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-03-24 23:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-03-18 12:05 [PATCH net 0/3] e1000/e1000e: fix uninitialized memory access in EEPROM write Agalakov Daniil
2026-03-18 12:05 ` [PATCH net 1/3] e1000: check return value of e1000_read_eeprom Agalakov Daniil
2026-03-18 15:38   ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Loktionov, Aleksandr
2026-03-18 12:05 ` [PATCH net 2/3] e1000: fix endianness conversion of uninitialized words Agalakov Daniil
2026-03-18 15:38   ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Loktionov, Aleksandr
2026-03-24 23:26   ` Tony Nguyen
2026-03-25 15:19     ` Fedor Pchelkin
2026-03-25 23:01       ` Jacob Keller
2026-03-18 12:05 ` [PATCH net 3/3] e1000e: " Agalakov Daniil
2026-03-18 15:39   ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Loktionov, Aleksandr
2026-03-24 23:27   ` Tony Nguyen [this message]
2026-03-25 15:02     ` [PATCH net v2] e1000: check return value of e1000_read_eeprom Agalakov Daniil
2026-03-25 15:42       ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Loktionov, Aleksandr
2026-03-25 15:16     ` [PATCH net-next v2 0/2] e1000/e1000e: limit endianness conversion to boundary words Agalakov Daniil
2026-03-25 15:16       ` [PATCH net-next v2 1/2] e1000: " Agalakov Daniil
2026-03-26  7:29         ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Loktionov, Aleksandr
2026-03-25 15:16       ` [PATCH net-next v2 2/2] e1000e: " Agalakov Daniil
2026-03-26  7:28         ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Loktionov, Aleksandr
2026-03-25 16:00     ` [PATCH net v3] e1000: check return value of e1000_read_eeprom Agalakov Daniil

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=a70a49a0-43f8-4908-993a-50999bf0dfa8@intel.com \
    --to=anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com \
    --cc=ade@amicon.ru \
    --cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=dish@amicon.ru \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lvc-project@linuxtesting.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
    --cc=przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com \
    --cc=rrv@amicon.ru \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox