linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] mailbox: mailbox-test: support single channel with separate Tx and Rx buffer

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]

Message-ID: <56C1C116.2060702@arm.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Feb 2016 12:14:14 +0000
From:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
	Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] mailbox: mailbox-test: support single channel with
 separate Tx and Rx buffer

Hi Lee,

On 12/02/16 09:41, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
>
> On 12/02/16 09:17, Lee Jones wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2016, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Lee, Jassi,
>>>
>>> Assuming mailbox-test was designed to be generic, I am trying to extend
>>> it to support single channel with separate Tx and Rx buffer. With these
>>> changes I am able to test arm_mhu driver. However I couldn't understand
>>> the intention of converting buffer to ASCII hex dump in read method.
>>> I have a local change to remove that so that it can deal with any data
>>> in any format(e.g. some protocol format)
>>
>> Not sure quite what you mean.  Hexdump can handle any data?  If the
>> hex value read isn't an ASCII value, a '.' is printed on the right
>> hand side.  What data are you expecting that you can't analyse with
>> hexdump?
>>
>
> Sorry for not being clear. Hexdump can handle any data. I do see that
> it displays quite nicely at the driver level which is nice.
>
> However my question was why is the the buffer copied to user space is
> not the original raw data, rather it's ASCII converted which is good for
> nice logging.
>
> One of the use-case the testing guys wants is the check the protocol
> specification using this. In their case they expect the test driver to
> send the raw data as is from the driver rather than the converted ASCII
> buffer. I tend to agree with them for 2 reasons:
>
> 1. userspace can do the conversion if required
> 2. the input buffer is not converted(i.e. in the write path), so it's
>     bit of inconsistent there.
>

Thoughts on this or am I still not clear ?

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep