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: <b89f3337-0869-35a8-114d-85e1fd81eb2c@acm.org>
Date:   Wed, 7 Dec 2022 15:31:55 -0800
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To:     Arthur Simchaev <Arthur.Simchaev@....com>,
        martin.petersen@...cle.com
Cc:     beanhuo@...ron.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] ufs: core: Remove redundant wb check

On 11/27/22 04:08, Arthur Simchaev wrote:
> We used to use the extended-feature field in the device descriptor,
> as an indication that the device supports ufs2.2 or later.
> Remove that as this check is specifically done few lines above.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>
> Signed-off-by: Arthur Simchaev <Arthur.Simchaev@....com>
> ---
>   drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c | 4 ----
>   1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> index 2dbe249..2e47c69 100644
> --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> @@ -7608,10 +7608,6 @@ static void ufshcd_wb_probe(struct ufs_hba *hba, const u8 *desc_buf)
>   	     (hba->dev_quirks & UFS_DEVICE_QUIRK_SUPPORT_EXTENDED_FEATURES)))
>   		goto wb_disabled;
>   
> -	if (hba->desc_size[QUERY_DESC_IDN_DEVICE] <
> -	    DEVICE_DESC_PARAM_EXT_UFS_FEATURE_SUP + 4)
> -		goto wb_disabled;
> -
>   	ext_ufs_feature = get_unaligned_be32(desc_buf +
>   					DEVICE_DESC_PARAM_EXT_UFS_FEATURE_SUP);

Does this code really have to be removed? I see a check of the
UFS_DEVICE_QUIRK_SUPPORT_EXTENDED_FEATURES flag above the removed
code but no check of the descriptor size?

Thanks,

Bart.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ