linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] drivers/misc: Add Aspeed P2A control driver

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: <20190327185410.GA14828@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Mar 2019 19:54:10 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Patrick Venture <venture@...gle.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
        Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] drivers/misc: Add Aspeed P2A control driver

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 11:44:36AM -0700, Patrick Venture wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 11:28 AM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 09:31:01AM -0700, Patrick Venture wrote:
> > > +     phys_addr_t mem_base;
> >
> > Is this really a 32bit value?
> 
> It's going to be a 32-bit value if this is in the dts for one of the
> correspondingly supported aspeed models.
> 
> >
> > Your ioctl thinks it is:
> >
> > > +struct aspeed_p2a_ctrl_mapping {
> > > +     __u32 addr;
> >
> > Does this driver not work on a 64bit kernel?
> 
> This driver is aimed at only 32-bit hardware (ast2400/2500).  I
> modeled the approach after the aspeed-lpc-ctrl driver as it's
> providing similar functionality.
> 
> >
> > > +     __u32 length;
> > > +     __u32 flags;
> > > +};
> >
> > addr really should be __u32 here so you don't have to mess with 32/64
> > bit user/kernel issues, right?
> 
> Add is __u32 there.  Are you suggesting it shouldn't be?

Ugh, yes, sorry, I meant to say "__u64".

If you all insist that this is all that is ever going to be needed, ok,
but I reserve the right to complain in 4 years when this needs to be
changed :)

thanks,

greg k-h