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:	Sat, 12 Jul 2014 07:26:12 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
CC:	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
	linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] i2c: stub: Add support for SMBus block commands

On 07/12/2014 02:20 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
>
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 13:05:41 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 07/08/2014 12:54 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> I agree that different chips may behave differently and it is not
> possible for i2c-stub to please everyone. However I do not think that
> the current implementation mimics any actual chip behavior. So we might
> as well switch to something more simple and more likely to please at
> least one device driver:
>
> From: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
> Subject: i2c-stub: Allow the increasing SMBus block write length
>
> This is no good reason to not allow SMBus block writes longer than the
> first one was. Lift this limitation, this makes the code more simple.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
> Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
> ---
>   Documentation/i2c/i2c-stub |    5 ++---
>   drivers/i2c/i2c-stub.c     |   12 +++---------
>   2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> --- linux-3.16-rc4.orig/Documentation/i2c/i2c-stub	2014-07-12 09:41:26.508195718 +0200
> +++ linux-3.16-rc4/Documentation/i2c/i2c-stub	2014-07-12 10:40:05.064578130 +0200
> @@ -20,9 +20,8 @@ operations.  This allows for continuous
>   EEPROMs, among others.
>
>   SMBus block commands must be written to configure an SMBus command for
> -SMBus block operations. The first SMBus block write selects the block length.
> -Subsequent writes can be partial. Block read commands always return
> -the number of bytes selected with the first write.
> +SMBus block operations. Writes can be partial. Block read commands always
> +return the number of bytes selected with the largest write so far.
>
>   The typical use-case is like this:
>   	1. load this module
> --- linux-3.16-rc4.orig/drivers/i2c/i2c-stub.c	2014-07-12 09:41:26.508195718 +0200
> +++ linux-3.16-rc4/drivers/i2c/i2c-stub.c	2014-07-12 11:00:41.472813787 +0200
> @@ -254,13 +254,6 @@ static s32 stub_xfer(struct i2c_adapter
>   				ret = -EINVAL;
>   				break;
>   			}
> -			if (b && len > b->len) {
> -				dev_dbg(&adap->dev,
> -					"Attempt to write more data (%d) than with initial SMBus block write (%d)\n",
> -					len, b->len);
> -				ret = -EINVAL;
> -				break;
> -			}
>   			if (b == NULL) {
>   				b = stub_find_block(&adap->dev, chip, command,
>   						    true);
> @@ -268,9 +261,10 @@ static s32 stub_xfer(struct i2c_adapter
>   					ret = -ENOMEM;
>   					break;
>   				}
> -				/* First write sets block length */
> -				b->len = len;
>   			}
> +			/* Largest write sets read block length */
> +			if (len > b->len)
> +				b->len = len;
>   			for (i = 0; i < len; i++)
>   				b->block[i] = data->block[i + 1];
>   			/* update for byte and word commands */
>
> Would that work for you?
>

Yes, sure, that works fine.

Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>

Thanks,
Guenter

--
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