linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] soc: qcom: llcc: Refactor llcc driver to support multiple configuration

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: <54d108d9-abfc-6b8e-7c1a-c93eef265575@quicinc.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:34:21 +0530
From:   Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>
To:     Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>,
        Komal Bajaj <quic_kbajaj@...cinc.com>, <agross@...nel.org>,
        <andersson@...nel.org>, <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        <conor+dt@...nel.org>, <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
CC:     <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] soc: qcom: llcc: Refactor llcc driver to support
 multiple configuration



On 8/10/2023 5:52 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 10/08/2023 07:11, Komal Bajaj wrote:
>> +    if (!cfgs || cfgs->num_config != DEF_NUM_CFG) {
>> +        ret = -EINVAL;
>> +        goto err;
>> +    }
>> +    cfg = &cfgs->llcc_config[DEF_NUM_CFG - 1];
> 
> This is a bit of a redundant check.
> 
> You add in the check for num_config != 1, then deref llc_config[0] but 
> in patch #4 you get an index and check that index against num_config

I would take this blame on me to suggest this..,but i was trying to
avoid the hard-coding initially done for [1], now, num_config[2]
converted to ARRAY_SIZE(), i find no harm in checking
cfgs->num_config >  DEF_NUM_CFG
since, anyways it will move to different function in #4.

[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/39b4bafd-410f-cae8-13ae-e18d751b51a2@quicinc.com/

[2]
.num_cfgs	= 1,

-Mukesh
> 
> I'm not seeing how at this point in your series, how num_config could be 
> anything other than 1.
> 
> I'd do away with the DEF_NUM_CFG define in this code/series completely.
> 
> num_config should encode all the necessary detail we need, DEF_NUM_CFG 
> just adds noise.
> 
> ---
> bod