linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH4/4] [POWERPC] Fix cpm

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]

Message-ID: <20070925151112.GB15739@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net>
Date:	Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:11:12 -0500
From:	Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>
To:	Jochen Friedrich <jochen@...am.de>
Cc:	linuxppc-embedded@...abs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH4/4] [POWERPC] Fix cpm_uart driver

On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 02:09:03PM +0200, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
> In cpm_uart_core.c, the operation "pinfo->rx_bd_base - DPRAM_BASE" is 
> used to calculate the DPRAM offset. So DPRAM_BASE must be relative to 
> dpram_vbase in commproc.c as well. However, cpm_uart_cpm1.h uses cpmp in 
> commproc.c to initialize DPRAM_BASE.
> 
> On ARCH=ppc, cpmp is a physical address with 1:1 virtual mapping ("well 
> known address"). On ARC=powerpc, this is an address obtained by 
> ioremap(), however it's a different ioremap() call than dpram_vbase is 
> obtained from, so noone can guarantee
> cpmp is always the same as dpram_vbase even on ARCH=powerpc.

I have patches submitted in which they're from the same ioremap, but
I agree that using cpm_dpram_addr(0) is a more robust way.

-Scott
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/