linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Xilinx: hwicap: cleanup

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <fa686aa40802232220m175cfd86w1f85e46473371539@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 23 Feb 2008 23:20:00 -0700
From:	"Grant Likely" <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To:	"Stephen Neuendorffer" <stephen.neuendorffer@...inx.com>
Cc:	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, git-dev@...inx.com, jirislaby@...il.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Xilinx: hwicap: cleanup

Stephen, when you address these comments, please double check the lkml
address.  It was misspelled when you sent this patch.

Cheers,
g.

On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Grant Likely
<grant.likely@...retlab.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Stephen Neuendorffer
>  <stephen.neuendorffer@...inx.com> wrote:
>  > Fix some missing __user tags and incorrect section tags.
>  >  Convert semaphores to mutexes.
>  >  Make probed_devices re-entrancy and error condition safe.
>  >  Fix some backwards memcpys.
>  >  Some other minor cleanups.
>  >  Use kerneldoc format.
>  >
>  >  Signed-off-by: Stephen Neuendorffer <stephen.neuendorffer@...inx.com>
>
>  Thanks Steven, some more comments below.
         ^^^^^^

Oops, sorry about the spelling.

g.

>
>
>  >
>  >  ---
>  >
>  >  Grant, Since it appears that the driver will stay in as-is, here are
>  >  the updates against mainline, based on Jiri's comments.
>  >  ---
>  >   drivers/char/xilinx_hwicap/buffer_icap.c   |   80 ++++++++++----------
>  >   drivers/char/xilinx_hwicap/fifo_icap.c     |   60 +++++++-------
>  >   drivers/char/xilinx_hwicap/xilinx_hwicap.c |  113 ++++++++++++++++------------
>  >   drivers/char/xilinx_hwicap/xilinx_hwicap.h |   24 +++---
>  >   4 files changed, 148 insertions(+), 129 deletions(-)
>  >
>  >  diff --git a/drivers/char/xilinx_hwicap/buffer_icap.c b/drivers/char/xilinx_hwicap/buffer_icap.c
>  >  index dfea2bd..2c5d17d 100644
>  >  --- a/drivers/char/xilinx_hwicap/buffer_icap.c
>  >  +++ b/drivers/char/xilinx_hwicap/buffer_icap.c
>
> >  @@ -148,9 +148,9 @@ static inline void buffer_icap_set_size(void __iomem *base_address,
>  >   }
>  >
>  >   /**
>  >  - * buffer_icap_mSetoffsetReg: Set the bram offset register.
>  >  - * @parameter base_address: contains the base address of the device.
>  >  - * @parameter data: is the value to be written to the data register.
>  >  + * buffer_icap_mSetoffsetReg - Set the bram offset register.
>
>  This is the only function that is still in camel case; it should
>  probably be changed also... In fact, this functions doesn't seem to be
>  used at all.  Can it just be removed?  Are there any other unused
>  functions in this driver?
>
>
>  >  diff --git a/drivers/char/xilinx_hwicap/xilinx_hwicap.c b/drivers/char/xilinx_hwicap/xilinx_hwicap.c
>  >  index 24f6aef..eddaa26 100644
>  >  --- a/drivers/char/xilinx_hwicap/xilinx_hwicap.c
>  >  +++ b/drivers/char/xilinx_hwicap/xilinx_hwicap.c
>
> >  @@ -344,7 +345,7 @@ int hwicap_initialize_hwicap(struct hwicap_drvdata *drvdata)
>  >   }
>  >
>  >   static ssize_t
>  >  -hwicap_read(struct file *file, char *buf, size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
>  >  +hwicap_read(struct file *file, __user char *buf, size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
>
>  This looks like it should be 'char __user *buf' instead of '__user char *buf'.
>
>
>  >   {
>  >         struct hwicap_drvdata *drvdata = file->private_data;
>  >         ssize_t bytes_to_read = 0;
>
> >   static ssize_t
>  >  -hwicap_write(struct file *file, const char *buf,
>  >  +hwicap_write(struct file *file, const __user char *buf,
>  >                 size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
>
>  Ditto on placement of __user
>
>
>  >  @@ -549,8 +556,7 @@ static int hwicap_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
>  >         int i;
>  >         int status = 0;
>  >
>  >  -       if (down_interruptible(&drvdata->sem))
>  >  -               return -ERESTARTSYS;
>  >  +       mutex_lock(&drvdata->sem);
>
>  Why not mutex_lock_interruptible()? (goes for all cases of mutex_lock())
>
>  Cheers,
>  g.
>
>  --
>  Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
>  Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
>



-- 
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
--
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/