linux-kernel - Re: drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/fsl-ldb.c:101: possible loss of information.

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: <20230309092647.GM31765@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Mar 2023 11:26:47 +0200
From:   Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
To:     David Binderman <dcb314@...mail.com>
Cc:     "andrzej.hajda@...el.com" <andrzej.hajda@...el.com>,
        "neil.armstrong@...aro.org" <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
        "rfoss@...nel.org" <rfoss@...nel.org>,
        "jonas@...boo.se" <jonas@...boo.se>,
        "jernej.skrabec@...il.com" <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
        "airlied@...il.com" <airlied@...il.com>,
        "daniel@...ll.ch" <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/fsl-ldb.c:101: possible loss of
 information.

Hi David,

On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 07:59:34AM +0000, David Binderman wrote:
> Hello there Laurent,
> 
> >We could, but I don't think it will make any difference in practice as
> >the maximum pixel clock frequency supported by the SoC is 80MHz (per
> >LVDS channel). That would result in a 560MHz frequency returned by this
> >function, well below the 31 bits limit.
> 
> Thanks for your explanation. I have a couple of suggestions for possible improvements:
> 
> 1. Your explanatory text in a comment nearby. This helps all readers of the code.
> 
> 2. Might the frequency go up to 300 MHz anytime soon ? The code will stop working then. 
> In this case, I would suggest to put in a run time sanity check to make sure no 31 bit overflow. 

As it's a hardware limit of the SoC, I wouldn't expect so.

This being said, I think adding a UL suffix to the constants would be
better than a comment as it will please static checkers and serve as
documentation to humans. Would you be able to send a patch to fix this ?

> Just a couple of ideas for the code.

Thanks for taking the time to share those.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart