> -----Original Message-----
> From: Intel-wired-lan <[email protected]> On Behalf
> Of Farber, Eliav
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2025 8:14 AM
> To: Greg KH <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; Nguyen, Anthony L
> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected];
> Lifshits, Vitaly <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; linux-
> [email protected]; Chocron, Jonathan <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]; Farber, Eliav <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 5.10.y] e1000e: fix EEPROM
> length types for overflow checks
>
...
> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/ethtool.c
> >> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/ethtool.c
> >> index 4aca854783e2..584378291f3f 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/ethtool.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/ethtool.c
> >> @@ -559,7 +559,7 @@ static int e1000_set_eeprom(struct net_device
> >> *netdev, {
> >> struct e1000_adapter *adapter = netdev_priv(netdev);
> >> struct e1000_hw *hw = &adapter->hw;
> >> - size_t total_len, max_len;
> >> + u32 total_len, max_len;
I'd like to recommend adding a comment to prevent future regressions, like:
/* Use u32 to match types in check_add_overflow() with eeprom->offset and
eeprom->len */
Anyway, it's good commit.
Reviewed-by: Aleksandr Loktionov <[email protected]>
...
> > Also, why is it not cc: [email protected]?
> Added to cc.
>
> ---
> Regards, Eliav
