linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V6 3/3] soc/tegra: pmc: Add support for IO pads power state and voltage

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 20 May 2016 15:06:30 +0100
From:	Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
To:	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>, <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
	<airlied@...ux.ie>, <swarren@...dotorg.org>
CC:	<gnurou@...il.com>, <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	<linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 3/3] soc/tegra: pmc: Add support for IO pads power
 state and voltage


On 20/05/16 14:34, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> 
> On Friday 20 May 2016 07:02 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> On 20/05/16 12:59, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>> +/* tegra_io_pads_config_info: Tegra IO pads bit config info.
>>> + * @dpd_config_bit: DPD configuration bit position. -1 if not
>>> supported.
>>> + * @voltage_config_bit: Voltage configuration bit position. -1 if
>>> not supported.
>>> + * @soc_mask: Bitwise OR of SoC masks if IO pads supported on that SoC.
>>> + */
>> Comment coding style :-(
> 
> I saw this style multiple places and so intentionally left here.
> If comment is inside the code then
> /*
>  * first-line comment
>  * second line
>  */
> 
> but for function, it can have in single line.
> 
> Anyhow, I will correct in next cycle.
> 
> 
>>
>>> +static inline int tegra_io_pads_to_dpd_bit(const struct
>>> tegra_pmc_soc *soc,
>>> +                       enum tegra_io_pads id)
>>>   {
>>> -    unsigned long rate, value;
>>> +    if (tegra_io_pads_configs[id].soc_mask & soc->io_pads_soc_mask)
>>> +        return tegra_io_pads_configs[id].dpd_config_bit;
>> I realise now that we are not checking if 'id' is greater than
>> TEGRA_IO_PADS_MAX anywhere. This should probably be handled here.
> 
> Do we need to check? Our parameter type is enum type and hence it is not
> expected to have outside of the MAX.
> I think it will be unnecessarily check here.

The enum does not prevent someone from passing a large number so I think
we should check.

>>>  
>>> +    int ret;
>>> +
>>> +    ret = tegra_io_pads_to_dpd_bit(pmc->soc, id);
>>> +    if (ret < 0)
>>> +        return ret;
>>> +
>>> +    *bit = ret % 32;
>>> +
>>> +    if (*bit < 32) {
>> Isn't bit always less than 32 here now?
>>
> Yaah this is bug. should be if (ret < 32)
> 
> My testcase has the pad name whose dpd bit is < 32 and hence did not
> catch it..
> 
> BTW, do you have the T124 based platform for SOR testing? I have T210
> platforms where I am testing.

Yes, I should be able to test on the t124-nyan-big.

Cheers
Jon


-- 
nvpublic