On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 03:25:47PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
>
> On 3/31/2019 3:12 AM, Colin King wrote:
> >From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >Currently the for-loop using an unsigned int for the loop counter
> >which is problematic when comparing it to the signed int count
> >This is an issue because if the signed int is negative then
> >the negative loop bound is implicitly cast to an unsigned int on
> >the comparison to loop counter i and will yield a very large value,
> >eventually causing an error when memmove/memcpy'ing outside the
> >allocated region pointed to by ndata.
> >
> >Fix this by simply making the loop counter i a signed int;
> >
> >Fixes: f2f2356685bc ("net: dsa: move master ethtool code")
> >Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >---
> > net/dsa/master.c | 3 +--
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/net/dsa/master.c b/net/dsa/master.c
> >index c58f33931be1..1b659647a303 100644
> >--- a/net/dsa/master.c
> >+++ b/net/dsa/master.c
> >@@ -87,8 +87,7 @@ static void dsa_master_get_strings(struct net_device *dev, uint32_t stringset,
> > struct dsa_switch *ds = cpu_dp->ds;
> > int port = cpu_dp->index;
> > int len = ETH_GSTRING_LEN;
> >- int mcount = 0, count;
> >- unsigned int i;
> >+ int mcount = 0, count, i;
>
> This looks fine but why the return value checking for the negative will not
> be good here ?
> count = ds->ops->get_sset_count(ds, port, stringset);
Hi Mukesh
Is there a return value check for negative?
Andrew
