linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] ASoC: rsnd: ssi: remove unnesessary period

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: <87lgidiwx0.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
Date:   Fri, 8 Dec 2017 06:07:01 +0000
From:   Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>
To:     Jiada Wang <jiada_wang@...tor.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 Jiada

Thank you for your feedback

> >> 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?

This function is used from PIO mode only now, and "byte" is sizeof(u32)
(Its size was "byte_per_period" when DMA mode used).
This "Further more" case never happen.
Removing from commit message is better for reader, IMO.

Best regards
---
Kuninori Morimoto