[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1520379912.4178.83.camel@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 23:45:14 +0000
From: "Derrick, Jonathan" <jonathan.derrick@...el.com>
To: "Bauer, Scott" <scott.bauer@...el.com>,
"jonas.rabenstein@...dium.uni-erlangen.de"
<jonas.rabenstein@...dium.uni-erlangen.de>,
"axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RESEND] block: sed-opal: fix u64 short atom length
Hi Jonas,
On Thu, 2018-03-01 at 14:27 +0100, Jonas Rabenstein wrote:
> The length must be given as bytes and not as 4 bit tuples.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jonas Rabenstein <jonas.rabenstein@...dium.uni-erlange
> n.de>
> ---
> block/sed-opal.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/sed-opal.c b/block/sed-opal.c
> index 36842bfa572e..d5f565e1557a 100644
> --- a/block/sed-opal.c
> +++ b/block/sed-opal.c
> @@ -562,7 +562,7 @@ static void add_token_u64(int *err, struct
> opal_dev *cmd, u64 number)
> }
>
> msb = fls(number);
> - len = DIV_ROUND_UP(msb, 4);
> + len = DIV_ROUND_UP(msb, 8);
This change looks partially correct, but I believe we should be doing
fls64() on 'number' as well.
It looks like it currently coincidentally works with u64 numbers
falling in 32-bit ranges.
>
> if (cmd->pos >= IO_BUFFER_LENGTH - len - 1) {
> pr_debug("Error adding u64: end of buffer.\n");
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (3278 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists