linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.2 035/107] PCI: Add dev_flags bit to access VPD through function 0

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:	Fri, 09 Oct 2015 02:22:23 +0100
From:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To:	"Rustad, Mark D" <mark.d.rustad@...el.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...hat.com>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.2 035/107] PCI: Add dev_flags bit to access VPD
 through function 0

On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 00:26 +0000, Rustad, Mark D wrote:
> Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> > --- a/include/linux/pci.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/pci.h
> > @@ -176,6 +176,8 @@ enum pci_dev_flags {
> > 	> > PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_D3 = (__force pci_dev_flags_t) 2,
> > 	> > /* Provide indication device is assigned by a Virtual Machine Manager */
> > 	> > PCI_DEV_FLAGS_ASSIGNED = (__force pci_dev_flags_t) 4,
> > +> > 	> > /* Get VPD from function 0 VPD */
> > +> > 	> > PCI_DEV_FLAGS_VPD_REF_F0 = (__force pci_dev_flags_t) (1 << 8),
> > };
> > 
> > enum pci_irq_reroute_variant {
> 
> In this hunk I happened to notice the change in how these values are
> assigned. Should the new value remain (1 << 8) or should it fall in
> line with the older implementation and simply be 8? Or should it be
> 256? It depends on which kind of consistency you prefer for the
> backport.

They're bit masks, not bit numbers, both in 3.2 and upstream.  In
mainline, bits 3-7 have already been assigned to other flags.  I don't
see the need to renumber or write the value differently when
backporting.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
If the facts do not conform to your theory, they must be disposed of.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (812 bytes)