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: <5A2A2669.4020506@mentor.com>
Date:   Thu, 7 Dec 2017 21:43:05 -0800
From:   Jiada Wang <jiada_wang@...tor.com>
To:     Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>
CC:     <lgirdwood@...il.com>, <broonie@...nel.org>, <perex@...ex.cz>,
        <tiwai@...e.com>, <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] ASoC: rsnd: ssi: remove unnesessary period_pos

Hi Morimoto-san

On 12/07/2017 01:58 AM, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
> Hi Jiada
>
>> Further more, if the passed 'byte' amount to
>> rsnd_ssi_pointer_update() is more than byte_per_period.
>> the calculation of next_period_byte isn't correct.
> Is it really happen ??
>
> Basically, I have no objection about this patch,
> but this explanation is very strange for me...
No, I didn't see the issue,
but the implementation of rsnd_ssi_pointer_update(), behaves like
it knows all caller will always pass 'byte' no larger than byte_per_period,
without any check internally.

I am ok to remove this explanation from commit message,
what do you think?

Thanks,
Jiada
> Best regards
> ---
> Kuninori Morimoto

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ