linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: kpc2000: kpc2000

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]

Date:   Sat, 8 Jun 2019 13:45:05 +0000
From:   Geordan Neukum <gneukum1@...il.com>
To:     Hao Xu <haoxu.linuxkernel@...il.com>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: kpc2000: kpc2000_i2c: void* -> void *

On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 03:27:46PM +0800, Hao Xu wrote:
> modify void* to void * for #define inb_p(a) readq((void*)a)
> and #define outb_p(d,a) writeq(d,(void*)a)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Hao Xu <haoxu.linuxkernel@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/kpc2000/kpc2000_i2c.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/kpc2000/kpc2000_i2c.c b/drivers/staging/kpc2000/kpc2000_i2c.c
> index a434dd0..de3a0c8 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/kpc2000/kpc2000_i2c.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/kpc2000/kpc2000_i2c.c
> @@ -124,9 +124,9 @@ struct i2c_device {
>  
>  // FIXME!
>  #undef inb_p
> -#define inb_p(a) readq((void*)a)
> +#define inb_p(a) readq((void *)a)
>  #undef outb_p
> -#define outb_p(d,a) writeq(d,(void*)a)
> +#define outb_p(d,a) writeq(d,(void *)a)

Alternatively to fixing up the style here, did you consider just
removing these two macros altogether and calling [read|write]q
directly throughout the kpc_i2c driver (per the '//FIXME' comment)?

Unless, I'm misunderstanding something, these macros are shadowing the
functions [in|out]b_p, which already exist in io.h. [in|out]b_p are for
8-bit i/o transactions and [read|write]q are for 64-bit transactions, so
shadowing the original [in|out]b_p with something that actually does
64-bit transactions is probably potentially misleading here.