linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] PCI: pciehp: Add pciehp_set_indicators() to jointly set LED indicators

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: <c9bb5e76-d6f6-9d59-d581-564e1385aa45@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Aug 2019 14:03:50 -0700
From:   sathyanarayanan kuppuswamy 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
Cc:     Denis Efremov <efremov@...ux.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] PCI: pciehp: Add pciehp_set_indicators() to
 jointly set LED indicators


On 8/12/19 1:40 PM, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 11:49:23AM -0700, sathyanarayanan kuppuswamy wrote:
>>> On 8/11/19 12:59 PM, Denis Efremov wrote:
>>>> +    if ((!PWR_LED(ctrl)  || pwr  == PWR_NONE) &&
>>>> +        (!ATTN_LED(ctrl) || attn == ATTN_NONE))
>>>> +        return;
>> Also I think this condition needs to expand to handle the case whether pwr
>> != PWR_NONE and !PWR_LED(ctrl) is true.
>>
>> you need to return for case, pwr = PWR_ON, !PWR_LED(ctrl)=true ,
>> !ATTN_LED(ctrl)=false, attn=on
> Why should we return in that case?  We need to update the Attention
> Indicator Control to On.

Attempting to PWR_ON when !PWR_LED(ctrl) is true is incorrect right ? 
Even if you don't want to return (to handle ATTN part of the function), 
may be you should skip updating PWR mask and cmd for this case.

>
> Thanks,
>
> Lukas
>
-- 
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux kernel developer