linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] ASoC: fsl_asrc: replace the process

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:   Thu, 18 Apr 2019 12:17:09 -0700
From:   Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@...il.com>
To:     "S.j. Wang" <shengjiu.wang@....com>
Cc:     "timur@...nel.org" <timur@...nel.org>,
        "Xiubo.Lee@...il.com" <Xiubo.Lee@...il.com>,
        "festevam@...il.com" <festevam@...il.com>,
        "broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>,
        "alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] ASoC: fsl_asrc: replace the process_option table
 with function

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 09:37:06AM +0000, S.j. Wang wrote:
> > > > And this is according to IMX6DQRM:
> > > >     Limited support for the case when output sampling rates is
> > > >     between 8kHz and 30kHz. The limitation is the supported ratio
> > > >     (Fsin/Fsout) range as between 1/24 to 8
> > > >
> > > > This should cover your 8.125 condition already, even if having an
> > > > outrate range between [8KHz, 30KHz] check, since an outrate above
> > > > 30KHz will not have an inrate bigger than 8.125 times of it, given
> > > > the maximum input rate is 192KHz.
> > > >
> > > > So I think that we can just drop that 8.125 condition from your
> > > > change and there's no need to error out any more.
> > > >
> > > No, if outrate=8kHz,  inrate > 88.2kHz, these cases are not supported.
> > > This is not covered by
> > >
> > >         if ((outrate > 8000 && outrate < 30000) &&
> > >             (outrate/inrate > 24 || inrate/outrate > 8)) {
> > 
> > Good catch. The range should be [8KHz, 30KHz] vs. (8KHz, 32KHz) in the
> > code. Then I think the fix should be at both lines:
> > 
> > -         if ((outrate > 8000 && outrate < 30000) &&
> > -             (outrate/inrate > 24 || inrate/outrate > 8)) {
> > +         if ((outrate >= 8000 && outrate =< 30000) &&
> > +             (outrate > 24 * inrate || inrate > 8 * outrate)) {
> > 
> > Overall, I think we should fix this instead of adding an extra one, since it is
> > very likely saying the same thing.
> 
> Actually if outrate < 8kHz, there will be issue too.

Here is the thing, the RM doesn't explicitly state that ASRC can
support a lower output sample rate than 8KHz. And I actually had
a concern when reviewing your PATCH-2, as the table of supported
output sample rate no longer matches RM.

If you've verified a lower output sample rate working solid with
the process_option function, that means our driver can go beyond
the limitation mentioned in the RM, then I believe [8KHz, 32KHz]
should be updated too -- that says we can do:
-	if ((outrate > 8000 && outrate < 30000) &&
-	    (outrate/inrate > 24 || inrate/outrate > 8)) {
+	if ((outrate >= 5512 && outrate =< 30000) &&
+	    (outrate > 24 * inrate || inrate > 8 * outrate)) {

Actually "ourate > 24 * inrate" is kind of pointless for range
[5KHz, 32KHz] but we can keep it since it matches RM.