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  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, 08 Jul 2014 13:05:41 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <>
To:	Jean Delvare <>
CC:	Wolfram Sang <>,
	Randy Dunlap <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] i2c: stub: Add support for SMBus block commands

Hi Jean,

On 07/08/2014 12:54 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
> On Mon,  7 Jul 2014 07:23:03 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> SMBus block commands are different to I2C block commands since
>> the returned data is not normally accessible with byte or word
>> commands on other command offsets. Add linked list of 'block'
>> commands to support those commands.
>> Access mechanism is quite simple: Block commands must be written
>> before they can be read. The first write selects the block length.
>> Subsequent writes can be partial. Block read commands always return
>> the number of bytes selected with the first write.
>> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <>
>> ---
>> v2: Make new functionality only available on request via functionality
>>      module parameter
>>      Add more details about SMBus block mode support to documentation
>>      Use correct sizeof() variable in devm_kzalloc
>>      Use stub_find_block() only in SMBus block command itself.
>>      Store first word of block data in chip->words[].
>>      When writing block data and the written data is longer than
>>      the first write, bail out with debug message indicating the reason
>>      for the error.
> Looks good, thanks for the quick update.
> Reviewed-by: Jean Delvare <>
> Just one thing I have been thinking about while reviewing the updated
> code... You decided to make the first SMBus block write select the
> maximum block length, and you always use that for SMBus block reads.
> However you accept partial writes. The fact that the order in which
> writes are performed has an effect on which writes are accepted is
> somewhat unexpected.
> Wouldn't it make more sense to accept all SMBus block writes,
> regardless of the size (as long as it is within the limits of the SMBus
> standard, of course)? Then the only thing left to decide is whether
> SMBus block reads use the maximum size or the size of the most recent
> SMBus block write.
> I suspect this would mimic the behavior of real chips better. What do
> you think?

Not really sure what the expected behavior is. My original code
accepted all writes and returned the most recent write, including
the most recent write length. I thought this was untypical, and that
it would be more typical for the chip to return a fixed length.
But ultimately I don't really know, and I am fine either way.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists