linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] remoteproc: add support for a new 64-bit trace 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: <20200522173346.GJ11847@yoga>
Date:   Fri, 22 May 2020 10:33:46 -0700
From:   Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To:     Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        Clement Leger <cleger@...ray.eu>,
        Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@...com>,
        Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@...com>,
        Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@...com>,
        linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] remoteproc: add support for a new 64-bit trace
 version

On Fri 22 May 09:54 PDT 2020, Suman Anna wrote:

> On 5/21/20 2:42 PM, Suman Anna wrote:
> > Hi Bjorn,
> > 
> > On 5/21/20 1:04 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > > On Wed 25 Mar 13:47 PDT 2020, Suman Anna wrote:
[..]
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/remoteproc.h b/include/linux/remoteproc.h
[..]
> > > > +struct fw_rsc_trace2 {
> > > 
> > > Sounds more like fw_rsc_trace64 to me - in particular since the version
> > > of trace2 is 1...
> > 
> > Yeah, will rename this.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > +    u32 padding;
> > > > +    u64 da;
> > > > +    u32 len;
> > > > +    u32 reserved;
> > > 
> > > What's the purpose of this reserved field?
> > 
> > Partly to make sure the entire resource is aligned on an 8-byte, and
> > partly copied over from fw_rsc_trace entry. I guess 32-bits is already
> > large enough of a size for trace entries irrespective of 32-bit or
> > 64-bit traces, so I doubt if we want to make the len field also a u64.
> 
> Looking at this again, I can drop both padding and reserved fields, if I
> move the len field before da. Any preferences/comments?
> 

Sounds good to me.

Thanks,
Bjorn