| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 22:53:39 -0300
From: Rodrigo Siqueira <rodrigosiqueiramelo@...il.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: John Syne <john3909@...il.com>, Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>,
daniel.baluta@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] staging:iio:ade7854: Fix error handling on
read/write
On 03/18, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 19:48:33 -0300
> Rodrigo Siqueira <rodrigosiqueiramelo@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > The original code does not correctly handle the error related to I2C
> > read and write. This patch fixes the error handling related to all
> > read/write functions for I2C. This patch is an adaptation of the John
> > Syne patches.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Siqueira <rodrigosiqueiramelo@...il.com>
> > Signed-off-by: John Syne <john3909@...il.com>
> Hi Rodrigo,
>
> I'm not sure what the chain of authorship was here. If this is fundamentally
> John's original patch he should still be the author and his sign off should be
> first. You then sign off afterwards to indicate that you 'handled' the patch
> and believe the work to be John's (you are trusting his sign off). This
> is 'fun' legal stuff - read the docs on developers certificate of origin.
>
> If the patch has changed 'enough' (where that is a fuzzy definition)
> then you should as you have here take the authorship, but John's sign off is
> no longer true (it's a different patch). If John has reviewed the code
> it is fine to have a reviewed-by or acked-by from John there to reflect
> that.
>
> Anyhow, please clarify the situation as I shouldn't take a patch where
> I'm applying my sign-off without knowing the origins etc.
Hi Jonathan,
Just for clarification, this is fundamentally John's original patch with
some changes on the way that write_reg operation returns the error. I
should ask for someone else, how to correctly handle this situation
since I did not have experience with this situation.
Actually, when I worked on this patch, I was confused about using
different authorship from the email. I got confused because of the
following statement:
"Make sure that the email you specify here is the same email you used to
set up sending mail. The Linux kernel developers will not accept a patch
where the "From" email differs from the "Signed-off-by" line, which is
what will happen if these two emails do not match." [1]
Anyway, I think this is not a newbie issue, and I should asked first.
Thanks for the great explanation, I will not make this kind of mistake
again.
Thanks
[1] - https://kernelnewbies.org/FirstKernelPatch
> > ---
> > drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7854-i2c.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------
> > drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7854.c | 10 +++++-----
> > 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7854-i2c.c b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7854-i2c.c
> > index 317e4f0d8176..4437f1e33261 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7854-i2c.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7854-i2c.c
> > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ static int ade7854_i2c_write_reg_8(struct device *dev,
> > ret = i2c_master_send(st->i2c, st->tx, 3);
> > mutex_unlock(&st->buf_lock);
> >
> > - return ret;
> > + return ret < 0 ? ret : 0;
> > }
> >
> > static int ade7854_i2c_write_reg_16(struct device *dev,
> > @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ static int ade7854_i2c_write_reg_16(struct device *dev,
> > ret = i2c_master_send(st->i2c, st->tx, 4);
> > mutex_unlock(&st->buf_lock);
> >
> > - return ret;
> > + return ret < 0 ? ret : 0;
> > }
> >
> > static int ade7854_i2c_write_reg_24(struct device *dev,
> > @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ static int ade7854_i2c_write_reg_24(struct device *dev,
> > ret = i2c_master_send(st->i2c, st->tx, 5);
> > mutex_unlock(&st->buf_lock);
> >
> > - return ret;
> > + return ret < 0 ? ret : 0;
> > }
> >
> > static int ade7854_i2c_write_reg_32(struct device *dev,
> > @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ static int ade7854_i2c_write_reg_32(struct device *dev,
> > ret = i2c_master_send(st->i2c, st->tx, 6);
> > mutex_unlock(&st->buf_lock);
> >
> > - return ret;
> > + return ret < 0 ? ret : 0;
> > }
> So for write cases you are flattening to 0 for good and < 0 for bad.
> good.
> >
> > static int ade7854_i2c_read_reg_8(struct device *dev,
> > @@ -110,11 +110,11 @@ static int ade7854_i2c_read_reg_8(struct device *dev,
> > st->tx[1] = reg_address & 0xFF;
> >
> > ret = i2c_master_send(st->i2c, st->tx, 2);
> > - if (ret)
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > goto out;
> >
> > ret = i2c_master_recv(st->i2c, st->rx, 1);
> > - if (ret)
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > goto out;
> >
> > *val = st->rx[0];
> But in read cases you are returning the number of bytes read...
> Given these functions can know the 'right' answer to that why not check
> it here and do the same as for writes in return 0 for good and < 0 for
> bad?
> > @@ -136,11 +136,11 @@ static int ade7854_i2c_read_reg_16(struct device *dev,
> > st->tx[1] = reg_address & 0xFF;
> >
> > ret = i2c_master_send(st->i2c, st->tx, 2);
> > - if (ret)
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > goto out;
> >
> > ret = i2c_master_recv(st->i2c, st->rx, 2);
> > - if (ret)
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > goto out;
> >
> > *val = (st->rx[0] << 8) | st->rx[1];
> > @@ -162,11 +162,11 @@ static int ade7854_i2c_read_reg_24(struct device *dev,
> > st->tx[1] = reg_address & 0xFF;
> >
> > ret = i2c_master_send(st->i2c, st->tx, 2);
> > - if (ret)
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > goto out;
> >
> > ret = i2c_master_recv(st->i2c, st->rx, 3);
> > - if (ret)
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > goto out;
> >
> > *val = (st->rx[0] << 16) | (st->rx[1] << 8) | st->rx[2];
> > @@ -188,11 +188,11 @@ static int ade7854_i2c_read_reg_32(struct device *dev,
> > st->tx[1] = reg_address & 0xFF;
> >
> > ret = i2c_master_send(st->i2c, st->tx, 2);
> > - if (ret)
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > goto out;
> >
> > ret = i2c_master_recv(st->i2c, st->rx, 3);
> > - if (ret)
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > goto out;
> >
> > *val = (st->rx[0] << 24) | (st->rx[1] << 16) |
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7854.c b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7854.c
> > index 90d07cdca4b8..0193ae3aae29 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7854.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7854.c
> > @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7854_read_8bit(struct device *dev,
> > struct iio_dev_attr *this_attr = to_iio_dev_attr(attr);
> >
> > ret = st->read_reg_8(dev, this_attr->address, &val);
> > - if (ret)
> > + if (ret < 0)
> If you did as discussed above with the reads then this change would not
> be needed and all the changes would be confined to the i2c code.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> > return ret;
> >
> > return sprintf(buf, "%u\n", val);
> > @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7854_read_16bit(struct device *dev,
> > struct iio_dev_attr *this_attr = to_iio_dev_attr(attr);
> >
> > ret = st->read_reg_16(dev, this_attr->address, &val);
> > - if (ret)
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > return ret;
> >
> > return sprintf(buf, "%u\n", val);
> > @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7854_read_24bit(struct device *dev,
> > struct iio_dev_attr *this_attr = to_iio_dev_attr(attr);
> >
> > ret = st->read_reg_24(dev, this_attr->address, &val);
> > - if (ret)
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > return ret;
> >
> > return sprintf(buf, "%u\n", val);
> > @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7854_read_32bit(struct device *dev,
> > struct ade7854_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> >
> > ret = st->read_reg_32(dev, this_attr->address, &val);
> > - if (ret)
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > return ret;
> >
> > return sprintf(buf, "%u\n", val);
> > @@ -416,7 +416,7 @@ static int ade7854_set_irq(struct device *dev, bool enable)
> > u32 irqen;
> >
> > ret = st->read_reg_32(dev, ADE7854_MASK0, &irqen);
> > - if (ret)
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > return ret;
> >
> > if (enable)
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists