linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] iio: ti-ads8688: Update buffer allocation for timestamps

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <15ee14f7-773d-5cd2-a6f5-6731dc284df6@ti.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Dec 2018 11:45:12 -0600
From:   Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>
To:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
CC:     <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] iio: ti-ads8688: Update buffer allocation for
 timestamps

On 12/16/2018 05:06 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 13:12:06 -0600
> Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com> wrote:
> 
>> Per Jonathan Cameron, the buffer needs to allocate room for a
>> 64 bit timestamp as well as the channels.  Change the buffer
>> to allocate this additional space.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>
> Same question around data types as in the previous patch.
> 
> If you can track down the original patch that introduced the bug and add
> add a fixes tag, that would be great as well.  This one should go into
> stable.

I will git blame it and call it out.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jonathan
>> ---
>>
>> v2 - New patch suggested change by maintainer - https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1021048/
>>
>>  drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads8688.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads8688.c b/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads8688.c
>> index 184d686ebd99..3597bc0697ee 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads8688.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads8688.c
>> @@ -385,7 +385,7 @@ static irqreturn_t ads8688_trigger_handler(int irq, void *p)
>>  {
>>  	struct iio_poll_func *pf = p;
>>  	struct iio_dev *indio_dev = pf->indio_dev;
>> -	u16 buffer[8];
>> +	unsigned short buffer[8 + sizeof(s64)/sizeof(short)];
> Why change from a well defined size of data to one that is only
> defined by the c spec to be no more than the size of an int?

I took the define from the ina2xx-adc I will change it back to the u16.

Dan

> 
>>  	int i, j = 0;
>>  
>>  	for (i = 0; i < indio_dev->masklength; i++) {
> 


-- 
------------------
Dan Murphy