linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pwm: don't allow duty cycle higher than period

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: <20160527163943.GB80118@google.com>
Date:	Fri, 27 May 2016 09:39:43 -0700
From:	Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
To:	Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
	linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pwm: don't allow duty cycle higher than period

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 06:38:14PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2016 09:35:33 -0700
> Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 09:34:39AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > Now that you mention it, I think you've also dropped some signed
> > (negative value) checking in pwm_config(). I'll squash in your diff +
> > some pwm_config() fixes.
> 
> ->period and ->duty_cycle are unsigned now ;).

Not in pwm_config(). And we don't want to implitly make thos into large
unsigned values.

Brian