Here's a patch to fix the issue introduced by me, as Reimar Döffinger pointed out,
Reimar Döffinger wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 03:01:20PM +0300, Naphtali Sprei wrote:
>> Bug fix for segfault when run as i82551 HW:
>> Use Extended TBD only when HW supports it (i82558 and up).
>>
>> Added assertions to guard from such buffer overflow
>> Introduce the MAX_TCB_BYTE_COUNT macro
>> Allocate buf big enough as HW needs (MAX_ETH_FRAME_SIZE -> MAX_TCB_BYTE_COUNT)
>>
>>
>> I don't feel 100% OK with the "s->device >= i82558B" condition
>> since it relies on the numeric (hex) value of those defines, which currently
>> is correct, but changes (which I don't forsee now) might break it.
>
> It seems this was applied. Unfortunately this breaks things on FreeBSD.
> There seem to be multiple issues.
> First, the intel document says the 82551, 82550, 82559 models are all
> supersets of the 82558. Or in other words: they all support this
> feature.
> Only the 82557 does not.
> But then even for that the FreeBSD driver will fail.
> The reason for that is this line:
> eeprom_contents[0xa] = 0x4000;
> the value here must be 0x01000 for all 82557 models it seems.
Correct the logic of determining devices that supports
extended TxCB: only the 82557 do not support it.
Signed-off-by: Naphtali Sprei <nsprei@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
}
#endif
+static bool device_supports_eTxCB(EEPRO100State * s)
+{
+ return (s->device != i82557B && s->device != i82557C);
+}
+
/* Commands that can be put in a command list entry. */
enum commands {
CmdNOp = 0,
} else {
/* Flexible mode. */
uint8_t tbd_count = 0;
- if ((s->device >= i82558B) && !(s->configuration[6] & BIT(4))) {
+ if (device_supports_eTxCB(s) && !(s->configuration[6] & BIT(4))) {
/* Extended Flexible TCB. */
assert(tcb_bytes == 0);
for (; tbd_count < 2; tbd_count++) {