linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] spi: spi-mem: Add driver for NXP FlexSPI controller

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: <20181210113609.59355f12@bbrezillon>
Date:   Mon, 10 Dec 2018 11:36:09 +0100
From:   Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>
To:     Schrempf Frieder <frieder.schrempf@...tron.de>
Cc:     Yogesh Narayan Gaur <yogeshnarayan.gaur@....com>,
        "linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "marek.vasut@...il.com" <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
        "broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>,
        "linux-spi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "robh@...nel.org" <robh@...nel.org>,
        "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "shawnguo@...nel.org" <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "computersforpeace@...il.com" <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] spi: spi-mem: Add driver for NXP FlexSPI
 controller

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 10:31:57 +0000
Schrempf Frieder <frieder.schrempf@...tron.de> wrote:

> >> Yes, I need to validate op->addr.nbytes else LUT would going to be programmed for 0 addrlen.
> >> I have checked this on the target.  
> > 
> > Also agree there. Some operations have 0 address bytes. We could also
> > test addr.buswidth, but I'm fine with the addr.nbytes test too.  
> 
> The "if (op->addr.nbytes)" is needed of course, but I think the default 
> case in the switch statement (and for other reasons the whole switch 
> statement) is not needed and rather a check for op->addr.nbytes > 4 
> should be added to nxp_fspi_supports_op(). I wrongly assumed this check 
> already exists in nxp_fspi_supports_op().

Ok, then this check on the max number of address bytes should indeed be
moved to the supports_op() implementation.