linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] usb: wusbcore: Use put_unaligned

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:   Tue, 17 Oct 2017 17:20:29 +0530
From:   Himanshu Jha <himanshujha199640@...il.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     bianpan2016@....com, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] usb: wusbcore: Use put_unaligned_le32

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 11:51:14AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 08:38:07PM +0530, Himanshu Jha wrote:
> > Use put_unaligned_le32 rather than using byte ordering function and
> > memcpy which makes code clear.
> > Also, add the header file where it is declared.
> > 
> > Done using Coccinelle and semantic patch used is :
> > 
> > @ rule1 @
> > identifier tmp; expression ptr,x; type T;
> > @@
> > 
> > - tmp = cpu_to_le32(x);
> > 
> >   <+... when != tmp
> > - memcpy(ptr, (T)&tmp, ...);
> > + put_unaligned_le32(x,ptr);
> >   ...+>
> > 
> > @ depends on rule1 @
> > type j; identifier tmp;
> > @@
> > 
> > - j tmp;
> >   ...when != tmp
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Himanshu Jha <himanshujha199640@...il.com>
> > ---
> > v2:
> > * added correct header file.
> > 
> >  drivers/usb/wusbcore/security.c | 9 ++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/wusbcore/security.c b/drivers/usb/wusbcore/security.c
> > index 170f2c3..256b56f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/usb/wusbcore/security.c
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/wusbcore/security.c
> > @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
> >   *
> >   * FIXME: docs
> >   */
> > +#include <asm/unaligned.h>
> 
> Ick, really?  asm/ ?  As the first include?  That feels wrong, at the
> very least, it needs to be at the end of the include list please.

I just sent a v3 patch with the necessary change!
Also, would you mind explaining as to why asm/ should not be the first
include ?

Thanks

> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h