linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] uio:powerpc:mpc85xx: l2-cache-sram uio driver implementation

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:   Tue, 14 Jun 2022 10:03:18 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Wenhu Wang <wenhu.wang@...mail.com>
Cc:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        "mpe@...erman.id.au" <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] uio:powerpc:mpc85xx: l2-cache-sram uio driver
 implementation

On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 07:53:46AM +0000, Wenhu Wang wrote:
> >> >> +
> >> >> +struct mpc85xx_l2ctlr {
> >> >> +     u32     ctl;            /* 0x000 - L2 control */
> >> >
> >> >What is the endian of these u32 values?  You map them directly to
> >> >memory, so they must be specified some way, right?  Please make it
> >> >obvious what they are.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Surely, the values should be u32 here, modified in v2
> >> The controller info could be found in
> >> "QorIQ⑩ P2020 Integrated Processor Reference Manual"
> >> "Chapter 6 L2 Look-Aside Cache/SRAM"
> >> See: http://m4udit.dinauz.org/P2020RM_rev0.pdf
> >
> >That's not the answer to my question :)
> >
> >These are big-endian, right?  Please mark them as such and access them
> >properly with the correct functions.
> 
> Yes, they are big-edian.
> Does it work to add comments(about order and access functions) for the structure ahead of it？
> And appending like "_be", "_access_be" or "_big_endian"? (struct mpc85xx_l2ctlr_be {ˇˇ};

No, not comments, these should be of the type __be32, right?

thanks,

greg k-h