linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] GenWQE PCI support, health monitoring and recovery

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: <1386082011.29309.2.camel@oc7383187364.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 03 Dec 2013 15:46:51 +0100
From:	Frank Haverkamp <haver@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de,
	cody@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
	utz.bacher@...ibm.com, mmarek@...e.cz, rmallon@...il.com,
	jsvogt@...ibm.com, MIJUNG@...ibm.com, cascardo@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	michael@...ra.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] GenWQE PCI support, health monitoring and recovery

Am Dienstag, den 03.12.2013, 06:30 -0800 schrieb Greg KH:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 02:35:17PM +0100, Frank Haverkamp wrote:
> > > > +/* common struct for chip image exchange */
> > > > +struct chip_bitstream {
> > > > +	uint8_t __user *pdata;		/* pointer to image data     */
> > > > +	int	 size;			/* size of image file	     */
> > > 
> > > I think this fails the 32/64bit issue, right?
> > 
> > Yes. I replaced those by something like
> >    __u32 data_addr;
> > I hope that is fixing the 32/64bit issue.
> 
> No, not at all, how are you going to put a 64bit userspace pointer in
> there?
> 

Ohh, sorry __u64 of course:

/* common struct for chip image exchange */
struct genwqe_bitstream {
        __u64 data_addr;                /* pointer to image data */
        __u32 size;                     /* size of image file */
        __u32 crc;                      /* crc of this image */
        __u8  partition;                /* '0', '1', or 'v' */
        __u64 target_addr;              /* starting address in Flash */
        __u8  uid;                      /* 1=host/x=dram */

        __u64 slu_id;                   /* informational/sim: SluID */
        __u64 app_id;                   /* informational/sim: AppID */

        __u16 retc;                     /* returned from processing */
        __u16 attn;                     /* attention code from
processing */
        __u32 progress;                 /* progress code from processing
*/
};

and than I do in my userspace application:

        load.data_addr = (unsigned long)buf;

Is that ok, or must I consider more?

Regards

Frank


--
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/