linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] tty: Add lookahead param to receive

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <YlAvUL2rMreUZwdF@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 8 Apr 2022 15:49:20 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     linux-serial <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Gilles Buloz <gilles.buloz@...tron.com>,
        Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] tty: Add lookahead param to receive_buf

On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 03:34:27PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2022, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 02:39:53PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:

...

> > > +		if (c == STOP_CHAR(tty)) {
> > > +			if (!lookahead_done)
> > 
> > But now it can be as below
> > 
> > 		if (c == STOP_CHAR(tty) && !lookahead_done)
> > 
> > > +				stop_tty(tty);
> > > +		} else if ((c == START_CHAR(tty) && !lookahead_done) ||
> > >  			 (tty->flow.stopped && !tty->flow.tco_stopped && I_IXANY(tty) &&
> > >  			  c != INTR_CHAR(tty) && c != QUIT_CHAR(tty) &&
> > >  			  c != SUSP_CHAR(tty))) {
> 
> Are you sure about this? ...If I make that change to the first if, the 
> second part of the else if's condition get a chance it didn't have 
> previously.

Oh, indeed. This will give a chance to the rest of the second conditional to be
triggered because of ||.

> What I'd like to do here is to take advantage of the function that was 
> added:
> 
> 		if (!n_tty_receive_char_flow_ctrl(tty, c) &&
> 		    tty->flow.stopped && !tty->flow.tco_stopped && I_IXANY(tty) &&
>         	    c != INTR_CHAR(tty) && c != QUIT_CHAR(tty) &&
> 	            c != SUSP_CHAR(tty))) {
> 			start_tty(tty);
> 			process_echoes(tty);
> 		}
> ...but it will change STOP_CHAR vs START_CHAR precedence for the case 
> where they're the same characters. I don't know if it matters.

No idea of impact of such change.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko