linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] i2c: mux: gpio: Replace custom acpi_get_local

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]

Date:   Thu, 18 Nov 2021 12:24:55 +0100
From:   Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>,
        linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Korsgaard <peter.korsgaard@...co.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] i2c: mux: gpio: Replace custom
 acpi_get_local_address()

On 2021-11-18 11:33, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> +Cc: Rafael
> 
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:24 PM Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se> wrote:
>> On 2021-11-15 16:41, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>> -     *adr = adr64;
>>> -     if (*adr != adr64) {
>>> -             dev_err(dev, "Address out of range\n");
>>> -             return -ERANGE;
>>> -     }
>>
>> In the conversion, I read it as if we lose this overflow check.
> 
> It depends from which angle you look at this. We relaxed requirements.
> 
>> Why is that
>> not a problem?
> 
> The idea behind the acpi_get_local_address() is to provide a unified
> way between DT and ACPI for the same value. In either case we take
> only a 32-bit value. We might nevertheless add that check to the API.
> Rafael, what do you think?
> 
> P.S. Just realized that in ACPI the higher part of the address may be
> used as flags by some interfaces (SoundWire is one of them), this is
> not applicable to I²C muxes right now, but who knows... So I prefer a
> relaxed version and, if necessary, documentation should be
> amended/updated.

Splendid, just checking that you're on top of things. I don't think any
doc update is needed on the i2c-mux end, until flags in the upper bits
are introduced? So, looks good to me, thanks!

Acked-by: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>

@Wolfram: You're finding this series in patchwork and will be picking it
up as usual, right? Thanks!

Cheers,
Peter