linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] ath11k: set register access length for MHI driver

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: <87h7i0juxt.fsf@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Mon, 14 Jun 2021 19:02:38 +0300
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
To:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
Cc:     Bhaumik Bhatt <bbhatt@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, hemantk@...eaurora.org,
        jhugo@...eaurora.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        loic.poulain@...aro.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        ath11k@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] ath11k: set register access length for MHI driver

Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org> writes:

> On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 12:51:43PM -0700, Bhaumik Bhatt wrote:
>> MHI driver requires register space length to add range checks and
>> prevent memory region accesses outside of that for MMIO space.
>> Set it before registering the MHI controller.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Bhaumik Bhatt <bbhatt@...eaurora.org>
>> Reviewed-by: Hemant Kumar <hemantk@...eaurora.org>
>
> Reviewed-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
>
> Kalle, should we do immutable branch for this patch or I can pick it up via MHI
> tree (if there are no other patches expected from ath11k for this controller)?

I'm not expecting any conflicts with this, and if there are, they should
be easy for Stephen or Linus to fix. So it's easiest to route this via
your tree. But I'm not giving my ack yet, see below.

I'm worried that this patchset breaks bisect. Every patch in the
patchset should not break existing functionality, what if only patches
1-3 are included in the tree but not patch 4? Wouldn't ath11k be broken
then? I didn't review the whole patchset, but I suspect the fix is to
include the ath11k change in the actual mhi patch which changes the
functionality. So that way we would not have a separate ath11k patch at
all.

Also I'm not able to test this patchset at the moment. Can someone else
help and do a quick test with QCA6390 to verify these doesn't break
ath11k?

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches