linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86/io: Define readq()/writeq() to use 64-bit type

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 14 May 2018 14:04:49 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/io: Define readq()/writeq() to use 64-bit type

On Mon, 2018-05-14 at 09:12 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2018, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 9:09 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de
> > > wrote:
> > > On Thu, 3 May 2018, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > >  #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> > > > 
> > > > -build_mmio_read(readq, "q", unsigned long, "=r", :"memory")
> > > > -build_mmio_read(__readq, "q", unsigned long, "=r", )
> > > > -build_mmio_write(writeq, "q", unsigned long, "r", :"memory")
> > > > -build_mmio_write(__writeq, "q", unsigned long, "r", )
> > > > +build_mmio_read(readq, "q", unsigned long long, "=r",
> > > > :"memory")
> > > > +build_mmio_read(__readq, "q", unsigned long long, "=r", )
> > > > +build_mmio_write(writeq, "q", unsigned long long, "r",
> > > > :"memory")
> > > > +build_mmio_write(__writeq, "q", unsigned long long, "r", )
> > > 
> > > What's wrong with u64 which we use for expressing io access to a
> > > 64bit wide
> > > resource?
> > 
> > Same answer as per v1, i.e. I would like to be consistent with other
> > types in this file (unsigned int for readl() and similar for the
> > rest).
> > If we would need them, we might change at once for all accessors.
> 
> I don;t think we need to fixup everything in one go. Having the patch
> which
> addresses the issue at hand first using u64 makes a lot of sense on
> its own.
> 
> Changing the other instances can be done as a follow up patch. Having
> explicit with types for such kind of accessors makes a lot of sense.

OK, I will re-do it this way.
Thanks for review!

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy