qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] e1000: cleanup process_tx_desc


From: Andrew Jones
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] e1000: cleanup process_tx_desc
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 03:34:21 -0400 (EDT)


----- Original Message -----
> On 06/03/2013 10:20 AM, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > Coverity complains about two overruns in process_tx_desc(). The
> > complaints are false positives, but we might as well eliminate
> > them. The problem is that "hdr" is defined as an unsigned int,
> > but then used to offset an array of size 65536, and another of
> > size 256 bytes. hdr will actually never be greater than 255
> > though, as it's assigned only once and to the value of
> > tp->hdr_len, which is an uint8_t. This patch simply gets rid of
> > hdr, replacing it with tp->hdr_len, which makes it consistent
> > with all other tp member use in the function.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <address@hidden>
> > ---
> >  hw/net/e1000.c | 16 ++++++++--------
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > 
> 
> The logic looks sound, but checkpatch detects some style issues. See below.
> 
> > diff --git a/hw/net/e1000.c b/hw/net/e1000.c
> > index e6f46f0c511e8..eec3e7a4524d1 100644
> > --- a/hw/net/e1000.c
> > +++ b/hw/net/e1000.c
> > @@ -556,7 +556,7 @@ process_tx_desc(E1000State *s, struct e1000_tx_desc
> > *dp)
> >      uint32_t txd_lower = le32_to_cpu(dp->lower.data);
> >      uint32_t dtype = txd_lower & (E1000_TXD_CMD_DEXT | E1000_TXD_DTYP_D);
> >      unsigned int split_size = txd_lower & 0xffff, bytes, sz, op;
> > -    unsigned int msh = 0xfffff, hdr = 0;
> > +    unsigned int msh = 0xfffff;
> >      uint64_t addr;
> >      struct e1000_context_desc *xp = (struct e1000_context_desc *)dp;
> >      struct e1000_tx *tp = &s->tx;
> > @@ -603,8 +603,7 @@ process_tx_desc(E1000State *s, struct e1000_tx_desc
> > *dp)
> >          
> >      addr = le64_to_cpu(dp->buffer_addr);
> >      if (tp->tse && tp->cptse) {
> > -        hdr = tp->hdr_len;
> > -        msh = hdr + tp->mss;
> > +        msh = tp->hdr_len + tp->mss;
> >          do {
> >              bytes = split_size;
> >              if (tp->size + bytes > msh)
> > @@ -612,14 +611,15 @@ process_tx_desc(E1000State *s, struct e1000_tx_desc
> > *dp)
> > 
> >              bytes = MIN(sizeof(tp->data) - tp->size, bytes);
> >              pci_dma_read(&s->dev, addr, tp->data + tp->size, bytes);
> > -            if ((sz = tp->size + bytes) >= hdr && tp->size < hdr)
> > -                memmove(tp->header, tp->data, hdr);
> > +            if ((sz = tp->size + bytes) >= tp->hdr_len
> > +                && tp->size < tp->hdr_len)
> > +                memmove(tp->header, tp->data, tp->hdr_len);
> 
> The 'if' statement above needs some braces. Checkpatch also isn't wild about
> the assignment inside of the conditional.
> 
> >              tp->size = sz;
> >              addr += bytes;
> >              if (sz == msh) {
> >                  xmit_seg(s);
> > -                memmove(tp->data, tp->header, hdr);
> > -                tp->size = hdr;
> > +                memmove(tp->data, tp->header, tp->hdr_len);
> > +                tp->size = tp->hdr_len;
> >              }
> >          } while (split_size -= bytes);
> >      } else if (!tp->tse && tp->cptse) {
> > @@ -633,7 +633,7 @@ process_tx_desc(E1000State *s, struct e1000_tx_desc
> > *dp)
> > 
> >      if (!(txd_lower & E1000_TXD_CMD_EOP))
> >          return;
> > -    if (!(tp->tse && tp->cptse && tp->size < hdr))
> > +    if (!(tp->tse && tp->cptse && tp->size < tp->hdr_len))
> >          xmit_seg(s);
> 
> Braces here as well.
> 
> >      tp->tso_frames = 0;
> >      tp->sum_needed = 0;
> > 
> 
> Although the style issues were present to begin with, we may as well take
> the opportunity to fix them.

Running checkpatch on the file yields

142 errors, 41 warnings

I could send a v2 that fixes the 1 error and 2 warnings found in the context
of this patch, but why? It's out of the scope of the patch (although I did
use "cleanup" in the summary...), and it would hardly make a dent in this
file's problems.

drew

> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Jesse Larrew
> Software Engineer, KVM Team
> IBM Linux Technology Center
> Phone: (512) 973-2052 (T/L: 363-2052)
> address@hidden
> 
> 



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]