Skip to contentSkip to conversation

2.6.25-rc6 tulip_read_eeprom fixes for BUG 4420

PATCH Applied Grant Grundler 2 participants 2 messages Mar 24, 2008 – Mar 29, 2008

Subsystems (2)
Networking Network drivers
lore
Share & tools
lore

Grant Grundler

author
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 2.6.25-rc6 tulip_read_eeprom fixes for BUG 4420

Jeff,
If "location" is > "addr_len" bits, the high bits of location would interfere with the READ_CMD sent to the eeprom controller.

A patch was submitted to bug:

    http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4420

which simply truncated the "location", read whatever was in "location modulo addr_len", and returned that value. That avoids confusing the eeprom but seems like the wrong solution to me.

Correct would be to not read beyond "1 << addr_len" address of the eeprom. I am submitting two changes to implement this:
1) tulip_read_eeprom will return zero (since we can't return -EINVAL) if this is attempted (defensive programming).
2) In tulip_core.c, fix the tulip_read_eeprom caller so they don't iterate past addr_len bits and make sure the entire tp->eeprom[] array is cleared.

I konw we don't strictly need both. I would prefer both in the tree since it documents the issue and provides a second "defense" from the bug from creeping back in.

thanks,
grant

Signed-off-by Grant Grundler <[email protected]>
drivers/net/tulip/eeprom.c +6 -0
index 206918b..843f101 100644
@@ -343,6 +343,12 @@ int __devinit tulip_read_eeprom(struct net_device *dev, int location, int addr_l
 	void __iomem *ee_addr = tp->base_addr + CSR9;
 	int read_cmd = location | (EE_READ_CMD << addr_len);
 
+	/* If location is past the end of what we can address, don't
+	 * read some other location (ie truncate). Just return zero.
+	 */	
+	if (location > (1 << addr_len) - 1)
+		return 0;
+
 	iowrite32(EE_ENB & ~EE_CS, ee_addr);
 	iowrite32(EE_ENB, ee_addr);
drivers/net/tulip/tulip_core.c +6 -1
index ed600bf..82f404b 100644
@@ -1437,6 +1437,7 @@ static int __devinit tulip_init_one (struct pci_dev *pdev,
 	   EEPROM.
 	   */
 	ee_data = tp->eeprom;
+	memset(ee_data, 0, sizeof(tp->eeprom));
 	sum = 0;
 	if (chip_idx == LC82C168) {
 		for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) {

@@ -1458,8 +1459,12 @@ static int __devinit tulip_init_one (struct pci_dev *pdev,
 		/* A serial EEPROM interface, we read now and sort it out later. */
 		int sa_offset = 0;
 		int ee_addr_size = tulip_read_eeprom(dev, 0xff, 8) & 0x40000 ? 8 : 6;
+		int ee_max_addr = ((1 << ee_addr_size) - 1) * sizeof(u16);
 
-		for (i = 0; i < sizeof(tp->eeprom); i+=2) {
+		if (ee_max_addr > sizeof(tp->eeprom))
+			ee_max_addr = sizeof(tp->eeprom);
+
+		for (i = 0; i < ee_max_addr ; i += sizeof(u16)) {
 			u16 data = tulip_read_eeprom(dev, i/2, ee_addr_size);
 			ee_data[i] = data & 0xff;
 			ee_data[i + 1] = data >> 8;
Applied
#1 lore raw
Quoted 19 lines · Grant Grundler

Jeff,
If "location" is > "addr_len" bits, the high bits of location would interfere with the READ_CMD sent to the eeprom controller.

A patch was submitted to bug:

    http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4420

which simply truncated the "location", read whatever was in "location modulo addr_len", and returned that value. That avoids confusing the eeprom but seems like the wrong solution to me.

Correct would be to not read beyond "1 << addr_len" address of the eeprom. I am submitting two changes to implement this:
1) tulip_read_eeprom will return zero (since we can't return -EINVAL) if this is attempted (defensive programming).
2) In tulip_core.c, fix the tulip_read_eeprom caller so they don't iterate past addr_len bits and make sure the entire tp->eeprom[] array is cleared.

Quoted 8 lines

I konw we don't strictly need both. I would prefer both in the tree since it documents the issue and provides a second "defense" from the bug from creeping back in.

thanks,
grant

Signed-off-by Grant Grundler <[email protected]>

applied, after manually removing "Jeff," and "thanks, grant" lines from the changelog ;-)