linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2.6.28-rc9] spi: spi_write_then

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, 23 Dec 2008 02:53:59 +0100
From:	Ingo Oeser <ioe-lkml@...eria.de>
To:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	spi-devel-general@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Vernon Sauder <vernoninhand@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.28-rc9] spi: spi_write_then_read() regression fix

Hi David,

On Monday 22 December 2008, you wrote:
> On Sunday 21 December 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, David Brownell wrote:
> > > 
> > > All SPI transfers are full duplex, and are packaged as half duplex
> > > by either discarding the data that's read ("write only"), or else
> > > by writing zeroes ("read only").  That patch wasn't ensuring that
> > > zeroes were getting written out during the "half duplex read" part
> > > of the transaction; instead, old RX bits were getting sent.
> > 
> > Hmm. In addition, isn't this broken (in that same function):
> 
> No -- this is full duplex.  The write_then_read() helper is
> simplifying a common half-duplex idiom for short operations,
> but the harware still does full duplex.  Buffer layout is:
> 
>   Before:	WWWWW0000000
>   After:	xxxxxRRRRRRR
> 
> That is, for every bit shifted out (W, 0) another one gets
> shifted in (x, R).  The I/O primitive essentially swaps
> contents of a one-word shift register between master and
> slave; or, sequences of such words.  Words don't need to
> be byte-size, though that's a common option.

> See above.  We only want the "R" bits which were shifted in
> right *after* the n_tx "W" bits.  If we offset rx_buf before
> the I/O, we'd start with the "x" don't-care bits and need to
> do something else to discard them.  (Plus, allocate more
> space at the end of the buffer.)

Wow, what interesting hardware logic and a nice explanation.

Could you put that into a comment somewhere close to those helpers?

You can safely assume, that any code which Linus doesn't understand
is non-trivial and needs a comment :-)


Best Regards

Ingo Oeser
--
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/