linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] platform/chrome: cros_ec_proto: check for missing EC_CMD_HOST_EVENT_GET_WAKE

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: <c03a678c-e288-c541-0fee-59b3585f2b43@collabora.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:08:22 +0200
From:   Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>
To:     Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...gle.com>
Cc:     Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] platform/chrome: cros_ec_proto: check for missing
 EC_CMD_HOST_EVENT_GET_WAKE_MASK

Hi Brian,

On 23/7/20 2:43, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 2:13 PM Guenter Roeck <groeck@...gle.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 1:50 PM Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org> wrote:
>>> Other than perhaps taking a lesson not to propagate -ENOTSUPP, I don't
>>> think this series should block on that, as this is a bugfix IMO.
>>
>> My patch will return -EOPNOTSUPP for EC_RES_INVALID_COMMAND, so maybe
>> you could do the same. In my latest version (not yet submitted) I
>> extracted the conversion into a separate function, so if your patch is
>> accepted now I can just add another patch on top of it to start using
>> that function.
> 
> Sure, I can use EOPNOTSUPP in v2.
> 

Yes, please, can you send a v2 using EOPNOTSUPP

> BTW, the error code is completely internal to cros_ec_proto.c in my
> patch, so it seems even less-related to your series, unless I got
> refactor cros_ec_get_host_event_wake_mask() to use
> cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status() instead of send_command(). I'm actually not
> sure why we don't do that, now that I think about it...
> 
> So WDYT? Should I rebase on your eventual v3 and refactor to
> cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status()? Or (re)submit this first, and add one more
> cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status() usage for you to tweak in your series?
> 

No need to rebase on top of Guenter patches, as I plan to pick your patches first.

Regards,
Enric

> I don't mind a lot either way, except that I would like to port this
> to older kernels soon.
> 
> Brian
>