linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] PCI: rockchip: fix sign issues for current limits

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: <20170323223348.GA102312@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Mar 2017 15:33:49 -0700
From:   Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>,
        Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen@...k-chips.com>,
        Wenrui Li <wenrui.li@...k-chips.com>,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] PCI: rockchip: fix sign issues for current limits

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 05:27:17PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 06:46:13PM -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
> > The regulator framework can return negative error codes via
> > regulator_get_current_limit() for regulators that don't provide current
> > information. The subsequent check for postive values isn't very useful,
> > if the variable is unsigned.
> > 
> > Let's just match the signedness of the return value.
> > 
> > Prevents error messages like this, seen on Samsung Chromebook Plus:
> > 
> > [    1.069372] rockchip-pcie f8000000.pcie: invalid power supply
> > 
> > Fixes: 4816c4c7b82b ("PCI: rockchip: Provide captured slot power limit and scale")
> > Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
> > Acked-by: Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>
> 
> I applied the first two patches (this already has Shawn's ack and the
> second is trivially obvious) to pci/host-rockchip.

Thanks!

> I'm not sure what the
> current state of the others is.

Patch 4 seems like it should be fine (it was discussed previously, but
never done).

Apart from existing leaks in the PCI framework (which Jeffy and Shawn
are trying to patch [1]), I don't think there are any known issues with
3 and 5. It's certainly better than having 100% broken unbind at least,
IMO.

I suppose it's worth getting an ack/nack from Shawn though.

Brian

[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9638353/
    https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9640545/
    https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9640549/