[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54E5C347.9070105@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:04:39 +0000
From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] regmap: Add range check in _regmap_raw_read()
On 19/02/15 10:27, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 08:40:39AM +0000, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>
>> + /* Check for readable registers before we start */
>> + for (i = 0; i < count; i++)
>> + if (!regmap_readable(map, reg + (i * map->reg_stride)))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>
> That's starting to look pretty expensive especially if what we're
> looking for is just max_register really... This is one of the reasons
Yes, I totally agree, this call would be expensive.
Initially I had some thing like this, and it works for me.
+ if (map->max_register &&
+ (reg > map->max_register ||
+ ((reg + (count - 1) * map->reg_stride) >
map->max_register)))
+ return -EINVAL;
> we're not religious about checking for readability everywhere, and
> obviously even if we avoid triggering this particular thing we still
> have to cope with both the caller and devices that didn't specify
> readability. A cheaper check for just max_register would be less
> concerning but it feels like we're trying to paper over a symptom with
> this rather than fix a problem.
Yes, just checking max_register would solve the issue for me, I think I
over done the patch.. I will resend with just max_register check.
>
--
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