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: <15b1b27c-1832-ff41-a9e8-31f71af1d64f@rock-chips.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Mar 2017 09:24:56 +0800
From:   Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>
To:     Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        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

Hi Bjorn,

On 2017/3/24 6:33, Brian Norris wrote:
> 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).

I'm fine with the other pacthes and fully tested it, but I was just
waiting for your decision for patch 4, so at least,

Acked-by: Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com> for pcie-rockchip.


>
> 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/
>
>
>