[ethtool] ethtool: Resolve use of uninitialized memory in rxclass_get_dev_info

The ethtool function for getting the rule count was not zeroing out the
data field before passing it to the kernel.  As a result the value started
uninitialized and was incorrectly returning a result indicating that
devices supported setting new rule indexes.  In order to correct this I am
adding a one line fix that sets data to zero before we pass the command to
the kernel.

Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com>
---

I am resending this since I didn't see any notification that it had been seen.
I also realized that I had not clearly identified that this is an ethtool user
space patch and not an ethtool kernel space patch.

 rxclass.c |    1 +
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 09:55 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> The ethtool function for getting the rule count was not zeroing out the
> data field before passing it to the kernel.  As a result the value started
> uninitialized and was incorrectly returning a result indicating that
> devices supported setting new rule indexes.  In order to correct this I am
> adding a one line fix that sets data to zero before we pass the command to
> the kernel.

Right.  For 'get' commands with no parameters (besides the device) the
data copied back to userland is normally zero-initialised and then
filled out by the driver, and I seem to have worked on that assumption.
But because of the odd multiplexing of RX NFC commands
ETHTOOL_GRXCLSRLCNT doesn't work like that.  And for 'my' driver that
didn't matter.  Sorry about that.

(We should really have some explicit documentation of responsibility for
structure initialisation.)

> Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com>
> ---
> 
> I am resending this since I didn't see any notification that it had been seen.
> I also realized that I had not clearly identified that this is an ethtool user
> space patch and not an ethtool kernel space patch.

It was perfectly clear and I had queued it up to review but hadn't yet
done so.

Ben.

>  rxclass.c |    1 +
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/rxclass.c b/rxclass.c
> index 4d49aa6..e1633a8 100644
> --- a/rxclass.c
> +++ b/rxclass.c
> @@ -207,6 +207,7 @@ static int rxclass_get_dev_info(struct cmd_context *ctx, __u32 *count,
>  	int err;
>  
>  	nfccmd.cmd = ETHTOOL_GRXCLSRLCNT;
> +	nfccmd.data = 0;
>  	err = send_ioctl(ctx, &nfccmd);
>  	*count = nfccmd.rule_cnt;
>  	if (driver_select)
>

On 07/16/2012 01:03 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 09:55 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> The ethtool function for getting the rule count was not zeroing out the
>> data field before passing it to the kernel.  As a result the value started
>> uninitialized and was incorrectly returning a result indicating that
>> devices supported setting new rule indexes.  In order to correct this I am
>> adding a one line fix that sets data to zero before we pass the command to
>> the kernel.
> Right.  For 'get' commands with no parameters (besides the device) the
> data copied back to userland is normally zero-initialised and then
> filled out by the driver, and I seem to have worked on that assumption.
> But because of the odd multiplexing of RX NFC commands
> ETHTOOL_GRXCLSRLCNT doesn't work like that.  And for 'my' driver that
> didn't matter.  Sorry about that.
>
> (We should really have some explicit documentation of responsibility for
> structure initialisation.)
>
>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com>
>> ---
>>
>> I am resending this since I didn't see any notification that it had been seen.
>> I also realized that I had not clearly identified that this is an ethtool user
>> space patch and not an ethtool kernel space patch.
> It was perfectly clear and I had queued it up to review but hadn't yet
> done so.
>
> Ben.
>
Yeah, that was my mistake.  I thought I hadn't sent it out with the
ethtool prefix when I actually had.

Thanks,

Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 17:10 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On 07/16/2012 01:03 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 09:55 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> >> The ethtool function for getting the rule count was not zeroing out the
> >> data field before passing it to the kernel.  As a result the value started
> >> uninitialized and was incorrectly returning a result indicating that
> >> devices supported setting new rule indexes.  In order to correct this I am
> >> adding a one line fix that sets data to zero before we pass the command to
> >> the kernel.
> > Right.  For 'get' commands with no parameters (besides the device) the
> > data copied back to userland is normally zero-initialised and then
> > filled out by the driver, and I seem to have worked on that assumption.
> > But because of the odd multiplexing of RX NFC commands
> > ETHTOOL_GRXCLSRLCNT doesn't work like that.  And for 'my' driver that
> > didn't matter.  Sorry about that.
> >
> > (We should really have some explicit documentation of responsibility for
> > structure initialisation.)
> >
> >> Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> I am resending this since I didn't see any notification that it had been seen.
> >> I also realized that I had not clearly identified that this is an ethtool user
> >> space patch and not an ethtool kernel space patch.
> > It was perfectly clear and I had queued it up to review but hadn't yet
> > done so.
> >
> > Ben.
> >
> Yeah, that was my mistake.  I thought I hadn't sent it out with the
> ethtool prefix when I actually had.

So, anyway, I've applied it and just done a bug fix release (3.4.2).

Ben.