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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150612112207.GK1921@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 2015 12:22:07 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Ben Zhang <benzh@...omium.org>
Cc:	Omair Mohammed Abdullah <omair.m.abdullah@...el.com>,
	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
	Dylan Reid <dgreid@...omium.org>,
	alsa-devel <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: core: Pass kcontrol pointer to bytes tlv callbacks

On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 02:10:28PM -0700, Ben Zhang wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:59 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 03:24:03PM -0700, Ben Zhang wrote:

> >> -     int (*get)(unsigned int __user *bytes, unsigned int size);
> >> -     int (*put)(const unsigned int __user *bytes, unsigned int size);
> >> +     int (*get)(struct snd_kcontrol *kcontrol,
> >> +                unsigned int __user *bytes, unsigned int size);
> >> +     int (*put)(struct snd_kcontrol *kcontrol,
> >> +                const unsigned int __user *bytes, unsigned int size);

> > This doesn't update any users and we do have some like the Haswell PCM
> > driver.

> I couldn't find any existing users of the callbacks. It looks like the
> modified callbacks are used by SND_SOC_BYTES_TLV only, and there is no
> reference to SND_SOC_BYTES_TLV in the kernel.

> The Haswell PCM driver uses SND_SOC_BYTES_EXT which doesn't use the
> callbacks in struct soc_bytes_ext. The xhandler_get/put are assigned
> to snd_kcontrol_new.get/put instead.

This then begs the question why the fix isn't for the TLV version to use
the same callbacks we're currently using?  It's not obvious looking at
the definitions of the controls why we would want them to be using
separate ones and TLV would normally not affect the I/O.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ