| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <c384c5ea1003220432i78883b0fof64f3ffa666a0776@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:32:25 +0100 From: Leon Woestenberg <leon.woestenberg@...il.com> To: "Scott D. Davilla" <davilla@....com> Cc: jarod@...sonet.com, "Naren (Narendra) Sankar" <nsankar@...adcom.com>, "hancockrwd@...il.com" <hancockrwd@...il.com>, "jarod@...hat.com" <jarod@...hat.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "abraham.manu@...il.com" <abraham.manu@...il.com> Subject: Re: CrystalHD driver safe on big endian systems? Hello Scott and others, On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 4:53 AM, Scott D. Davilla <davilla@....com> wrote: > > <..> From what I've seen in code, it looks definite little endian based and would need > a look over regarding byte swap. > What parts of the code assumes little endian from what you've seen? Now, byte swap endianess is one thing, C bitfields in combination with it, another. I have given it a first shot here (mailer unsuitable for sending patches), still failed on PowerPC: http://www.sidebranch.com/crystalhd/ May I suggest we instrument all register access functions with a printk() of the register being written? Then I can compare little endian access patterns with big endian, to be sure we get the bitfields, code assumptions and byte swap correctly. Regards, -- Leon -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists