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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <BN8PR12MB32664256580771FA9102EB14D3AA0@BN8PR12MB3266.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Apr 2020 08:14:03 +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/29/2020, 13:59:08 (UTC+00:00)

> > > > @@ -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 ?
> > 
> Hi, Jose
> Seems after your patch, all of current released UFS control versions will be supported except the
> version suffix is non-zero. Right?

I think we cover all versions with this patch.

---
Thanks,
Jose Miguel Abreu