Hi Uwe,

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 01:42:21PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
quoted text
> Hello Shawn,
> 
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 07:58:09PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 11:31:38AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 06:05:21PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 08:53:30AM +0200, Baruch Siach wrote:
> > > > 	if (iap == fec_mac_default)
> > > > 		dev->dev_addr[ETH_ALEN-1] = fec_mac_default[ETH_ALEN-1] + fep->pdev->id;
> > > Can this overflow?  (I didn't check the code, so my concern might be
> > > completely stupid here.)
> > No. dev->dev_addr points to netdev_hw_addr->addr, which is a 32 bytes array.
> I didn't mean an out-of-bound access, but what is if
> fec_mac_default[ETH_ALEN-1] is 0xff and you add 1?  Does that result in
> 0x100 or 0?  What if id is <0?  For big ids you might even handle a
> carry to indixes <ETH_ALEN-2.
> 
First of all, all my patch did is changing fep->index to,
fep->pdev->id, which should not bring any problem you are concerned.

Secondly, I do not understand how the overflow on 
fec_mac_default[ETH_ALEN-1] can result in a carry on the next array
element. Here is what I'm seeing with fec_mac=00:04:9f:01:30:ff.

eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:04:9F:01:30:FF
eth1      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:04:9F:01:30:00

-- 
Regards,
Shawn

--
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