From: Barbara Skobiej <barbara.skobiej@intel.com>
One of the bit shifts in MAC hash calculation triggers a static analysis
warning about a potential overflow. Fix the data type to avoid this.
Fixes: af75078fece3 ("first public release")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Barbara Skobiej <barbara.skobiej@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
---
drivers/net/intel/e1000/base/e1000_mac.c | 6 ++++--
drivers/net/intel/e1000/base/e1000_vf.c | 6 ++++--
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
@@ -541,8 +541,10 @@ u32 e1000_hash_mc_addr_generic(struct e1000_hw *hw, u8 *mc_addr)
break;
}
- hash_value = hash_mask & (((mc_addr[4] >> (8 - bit_shift)) |
- (((u16) mc_addr[5]) << bit_shift)));
+ hash_value = (u32)mc_addr[4];
+ hash_value = hash_value >> (8 - bit_shift);
+ hash_value |= (((u32)mc_addr[5]) << bit_shift);
+ hash_value &= hash_mask;
return hash_value;
}
@@ -345,8 +345,10 @@ STATIC u32 e1000_hash_mc_addr_vf(struct e1000_hw *hw, u8 *mc_addr)
while (hash_mask >> bit_shift != 0xFF && bit_shift < 4)
bit_shift++;
- hash_value = hash_mask & (((mc_addr[4] >> (8 - bit_shift)) |
- (((u16) mc_addr[5]) << bit_shift)));
+ hash_value = (u32)mc_addr[4];
+ hash_value = hash_value >> (8 - bit_shift);
+ hash_value |= (((u32)mc_addr[5]) << bit_shift);
+ hash_value &= hash_mask;
return hash_value;
}