linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] serial: 8250: Let drivers request full 16550A feature probing

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: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2209190911540.14808@angie.orcam.me.uk>
Date:   Mon, 19 Sep 2022 09:18:26 +0100 (BST)
From:   "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...am.me.uk>
To:     Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Anders Blomdell <anders.blomdell@...trol.lth.se>,
        linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] serial: 8250: Let drivers request full 16550A feature
 probing

On Mon, 19 Sep 2022, Jiri Slaby wrote:

> > --- linux-macro.orig/include/linux/serial_core.h
> > +++ linux-macro/include/linux/serial_core.h
> > @@ -414,7 +414,7 @@ struct uart_icount {
> >   	__u32	buf_overrun;
> >   };
> >   -typedef unsigned int __bitwise upf_t;
> > +typedef __u64 __bitwise upf_t;
> 
> Why __u64 and not u64?

 For consistency as there's `__u32' used elsewhere in this file.  It's not 
clear to me what our rules WRT the use of `s*'/`u*' vs `__s*'/`__u*' are.  
I don't think we have it mentioned under Documentation/.  Please clarify 
if you know and I can update the change accordingly.

> > @@ -522,6 +522,7 @@ struct uart_port {
> >   #define UPF_FIXED_PORT		((__force upf_t) (1 << 29))
> >   #define UPF_DEAD		((__force upf_t) (1 << 30))
> >   #define UPF_IOREMAP		((__force upf_t) (1 << 31))
> > +#define UPF_FULL_PROBE		((__force upf_t) (1ULL << 32))
> 
> This looks like a perfect time to switch them all to BIT_ULL().

 Good point, I keep forgetting about that macro.  I'll keep this part 
unchanged for the purpose of backporting and add 3/3 to switch all the 
macros over.

  Maciej