linux-kernel - RE: [EXT] [PATCH v2 1/5] scsi: ufs: Allow UFS 3.0 as a valid version

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

Message-ID: <BN8PR12MB3266D1F9B038EF821FA8D503D3AD0@BN8PR12MB3266.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Apr 2020 06:49:09 +0000
From:   Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>
To:     "Bean Huo (beanhuo)" <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
        "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>,
        Joao Lima <Joao.Lima@...opsys.com>,
        "Alim Akhtar" <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [EXT] [PATCH v2 1/5] scsi: ufs: Allow UFS 3.0 as a valid version

From: Bean Huo (beanhuo) <beanhuo@...ron.com>
Date: Apr/24/2020, 16:57:07 (UTC+00:00)

> Hi, Jose
> 
> > @@ -8441,7 +8441,8 @@ int ufshcd_init(struct ufs_hba *hba, void __iomem
> > *mmio_base, unsigned int irq)
> >  	if ((hba->ufs_version != UFSHCI_VERSION_10) &&
> >  	    (hba->ufs_version != UFSHCI_VERSION_11) &&
> >  	    (hba->ufs_version != UFSHCI_VERSION_20) &&
> > -	    (hba->ufs_version != UFSHCI_VERSION_21))
> > +	    (hba->ufs_version != UFSHCI_VERSION_21) &&
> > +	    (hba->ufs_version != UFSHCI_VERSION_30))
> 
> I don't think these checkups of UFSHCI version is necessary,  does the UFSHCI have other version number except these?
> Is there somebody still v1.0 and v1.1?

Probably. I think we can leave them or change the dev_err to a dev_warn. 
This way we have logs in case someone is using a non-supported version.

What do you think ?

---
Thanks,
Jose Miguel Abreu