[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231119112856.11587-4-l.sanfilippo@kunbus.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2023 12:28:51 +0100
From: Lino Sanfilippo <l.sanfilippo@...bus.com>
To: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, jirislaby@...nel.org,
ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com
Cc: u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de, shawnguo@...nel.org,
s.hauer@...gutronix.de, mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com,
alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com, cniedermaier@...electronics.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
LinoSanfilippo@....de, lukas@...ner.de, p.rosenberger@...bus.com,
Lino Sanfilippo <l.sanfilippo@...bus.com>,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [RESEND PATCH v4 3/7] serial: core: fix sanitizing check for RTS settings
Among other things uart_sanitize_serial_rs485() tests the sanity of the RTS
settings in a RS485 configuration that has been passed by userspace.
If RTS-on-send and RTS-after-send are both set or unset the configuration
is adjusted and RTS-after-send is disabled and RTS-on-send enabled.
This however makes only sense if both RTS modes are actually supported by
the driver.
With commit be2e2cb1d281 ("serial: Sanitize rs485_struct") the code does
take the driver support into account but only checks if one of both RTS
modes are supported. This may lead to the errorneous result of RTS-on-send
being set even if only RTS-after-send is supported.
Fix this by changing the implemented logic: First clear all unsupported
flags in the RS485 configuration, then adjust an invalid RTS setting by
taking into account which RTS mode is supported.
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Fixes: be2e2cb1d281 ("serial: Sanitize rs485_struct")
Signed-off-by: Lino Sanfilippo <l.sanfilippo@...bus.com>
---
drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c b/drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c
index af175c803c22..b96fc2ba8596 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c
@@ -1371,19 +1371,27 @@ static void uart_sanitize_serial_rs485(struct uart_port *port, struct serial_rs4
return;
}
+ rs485->flags &= supported_flags;
+
/* Pick sane settings if the user hasn't */
- if ((supported_flags & (SER_RS485_RTS_ON_SEND|SER_RS485_RTS_AFTER_SEND)) &&
- !(rs485->flags & SER_RS485_RTS_ON_SEND) ==
+ if (!(rs485->flags & SER_RS485_RTS_ON_SEND) ==
!(rs485->flags & SER_RS485_RTS_AFTER_SEND)) {
- dev_warn_ratelimited(port->dev,
- "%s (%d): invalid RTS setting, using RTS_ON_SEND instead\n",
- port->name, port->line);
- rs485->flags |= SER_RS485_RTS_ON_SEND;
- rs485->flags &= ~SER_RS485_RTS_AFTER_SEND;
- supported_flags |= SER_RS485_RTS_ON_SEND|SER_RS485_RTS_AFTER_SEND;
- }
+ if (supported_flags & SER_RS485_RTS_ON_SEND) {
+ rs485->flags |= SER_RS485_RTS_ON_SEND;
+ rs485->flags &= ~SER_RS485_RTS_AFTER_SEND;
- rs485->flags &= supported_flags;
+ dev_warn_ratelimited(port->dev,
+ "%s (%d): invalid RTS setting, using RTS_ON_SEND instead\n",
+ port->name, port->line);
+ } else {
+ rs485->flags |= SER_RS485_RTS_AFTER_SEND;
+ rs485->flags &= ~SER_RS485_RTS_ON_SEND;
+
+ dev_warn_ratelimited(port->dev,
+ "%s (%d): invalid RTS setting, using RTS_AFTER_SEND instead\n",
+ port->name, port->line);
+ }
+ }
uart_sanitize_serial_rs485_delays(port, rs485);
--
2.42.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists