linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Input: drv266x: Fix misuse of regmap_update

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <90cd6727-4394-1b93-b6fb-1c3d870df229@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 29 Nov 2016 18:24:16 +0100
From:   Florian Vaussard <florian.vaussard@...il.com>
To:     Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Florian Vaussard <florian.vaussard@...g-vd.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Input: drv266x: Fix misuse of regmap_update_bits

Hello Dan,

Le 29. 11. 16 à 18:10, Dan Murphy a écrit :
> Florian
> 
> On 11/29/2016 10:59 AM, Florian Vaussard wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> This series fixes similar misues of the regmap_update_bits() API found
>> inside the drv2665.c and drv2667.c drivers. More details can be found
>> in the message of each patch.
>>
>> Theses changes are not tested as I do not have the required hardware,
>> but the calls to regmap_update_bits() are clearly wrong in the current
>> code and the fix seems obvious. Any tests are warmly welcome.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Florian
>>
>> Florian Vaussard (2):
>>   Input: drv2665: Fix misuse of regmap_update_bits
>>   Input: drv2667: Fix misuse of regmap_update_bits
> 
> Thanks for the patches what about the drv260x.c?
> 

>From what I can see, drv260x.c does not have such a bug. The calls to
regmap_update_bits(.., mask, value) in drv260x.c where value > 0 are using
DRV260X_LIB_SEL_MASK and DRV260X_STANDBY_MASK as masks. In both cases, the range
of 'value' is such that (mask & value) is not null (if 'value' is not null of
course). Thus no obvious problems here.

Best regards,
Florian