linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hwrng: stm32

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:	Tue, 24 May 2016 12:57:56 +0200
From:	Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>
To:	Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hwrng: stm32 - fix build warning

2016-05-24 12:09 GMT+02:00 Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>:
> On 24/05/16 09:50, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/char/hw_random/stm32-rng.c
>> b/drivers/char/hw_random/stm32-rng.c
>> index 92a810648bd0..2a0fc90e4dc3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/char/hw_random/stm32-rng.c
>> +++ b/drivers/char/hw_random/stm32-rng.c
>> @@ -68,6 +68,10 @@ static int stm32_rng_read(struct hwrng *rng, void
>> *data, size_t max, bool wait)
>>                         } while (!sr && --timeout);
>>                 }
>>
>> +               if (WARN_ONCE(sr & (RNG_SR_SEIS | RNG_SR_CEIS),
>> +                               "bad RNG status - %x\n", sr))
>> +                       writel_relaxed(0, priv->base + RNG_SR);
>> +
>>                 /* If error detected or data not ready... */
>>                 if (sr != RNG_SR_DRDY)
>>                         break;
>
>
> Minor quibble but I might prefer that the error handling/recovery actually
> be put on the error path itself (included in the if (sr != RNG_SR_DRDY) ).
Yes, it would be better.

Regards,
Maxime