linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 07/18] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: move VTU VID accessors

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: <20170427185134.GJ17364@lunn.ch>
Date:   Thu, 27 Apr 2017 20:51:34 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel@...oirfairelinux.com,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 07/18] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: move VTU VID
 accessors

> @@ -1464,13 +1457,16 @@ static int _mv88e6xxx_vtu_loadpurge(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip,
>  				    struct mv88e6xxx_vtu_entry *entry)
>  {
>  	u16 op = GLOBAL_VTU_OP_VTU_LOAD_PURGE;
> -	u16 reg = 0;
>  	int err;
>  
>  	err = mv88e6xxx_g1_vtu_op_wait(chip);
>  	if (err)
>  		return err;
>  
> +	err = mv88e6xxx_g1_vtu_vid_write(chip, entry);
> +	if (err)
> +		return err;
> +
>  	if (!entry->valid)
>  		goto loadpurge;
>  
> @@ -1496,14 +1492,7 @@ static int _mv88e6xxx_vtu_loadpurge(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip,
>  		op |= (entry->fid & 0xf0) << 8;
>  		op |= entry->fid & 0xf;
>  	}
> -
> -	reg = GLOBAL_VTU_VID_VALID;
>  loadpurge:
> -	reg |= entry->vid & GLOBAL_VTU_VID_MASK;
> -	err = mv88e6xxx_g1_write(chip, GLOBAL_VTU_VID, reg);
> -	if (err)
> -		return err;
> -
>  	return mv88e6xxx_g1_vtu_op(chip, op);
>  }

This is not obvious, why do the vtu_vid_write() at the beginning,
rather than at the end? Especially before the if (!entry->valid).

However, when you look at the rest of the patch, it is O.K.

It might of been better to do this in two patches, to make it clearer
what is going on.

Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>

    Andrew