> -----Original Message-----
> From: Williams, Mitch A
> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 10:50 AM
> To: Dan Carpenter; Kirsher, Jeffrey T; Brown, Aaron F
> Cc: Brandeburg, Jesse; Allan, Bruce W; Wyborny, Carolyn; Skidmore, Donald
> C; Rose, Gregory V; Duyck, Alexander H; Ronciak, John; Nelson, Shannon;
> Wei Yongjun; [email protected]; kernel-
> [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [patch] i40e: potential array underflow in
> i40e_vc_process_vf_msg()
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dan Carpenter [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 9:31 PM
> > To: Kirsher, Jeffrey T
> > Cc: Brandeburg, Jesse; Allan, Bruce W; Wyborny, Carolyn; Skidmore,
> > Donald C; Rose, Gregory V; Duyck, Alexander H; Ronciak, John;
> > Williams, Mitch A; Nelson, Shannon; Wei Yongjun;
> > [email protected]; kernel- [email protected]
> > Subject: [patch] i40e: potential array underflow in
> > i40e_vc_process_vf_msg()
> >
> > If "vf_id" is smaller than hw->func_caps.vf_base_id then we leads to
> > an array underflow of the pf->vf[] array.
> >
> > Fixes: 7efa84b7abc1 ('i40e: support VFs on PFs other than 0')
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_virtchnl_pf.c
> > b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_virtchnl_pf.c
> > index 55ec2db71fa1..89482a078e9d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_virtchnl_pf.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_virtchnl_pf.c
> > @@ -1698,7 +1698,7 @@ int i40e_vc_process_vf_msg(struct i40e_pf *pf,
> > u16 vf_id, u32 v_opcode,
> >                        u32 v_retval, u8 *msg, u16 msglen)  {
> >     struct i40e_hw *hw = &pf->hw;
> > -   int local_vf_id = vf_id - hw->func_caps.vf_base_id;
> > +   unsigned int local_vf_id = vf_id - hw->func_caps.vf_base_id;
> >     struct i40e_vf *vf;
> >     int ret;
> >
> 
> Thanks, Dan. Aaron (covering for Jeff, who's on sabbatical) has pulled
> this into our internal queue for validation, and it will get pushed out
> with a regular update.

Actually, can I get you to re spin the patch based off a fresh pull from 
net-next?  There has been a whole lot of movement in the i40e code the last 
couple of days and this patch no longer applies cleanly.  It is straight 
forward enough that I could fix it up to make it apply to our internal tree, 
but would rather be able to send it on in as pure a form from you as possible.

Thanks,
Aaron

> 
> The patch is obviously valid, though I should point out that if this
> number ever turns out to be negative, there is something very, very wrong
> with the hardware, and we should probably all just run for cover.
> 
> -Mitch

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. 
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
E1000-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel
To learn more about Intel&#174; Ethernet, visit 
http://communities.intel.com/community/wired

Reply via email to