linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] spi: sh-msiof: avoid integer overflow in constants

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]

Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 12:39:49 +0100
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
Cc: linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, 
	linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: sh-msiof: avoid integer overflow in constants

Hi Wolfram,

On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 12:26 PM Wolfram Sang
<wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com> wrote:
> > What about unifying the individual SIFCTR_?FWM_[0-9]* definitions
> > into SIFCTR_xFWM_[0-9]* instead, and using the bitfield helpers in its
> > sole user?
>
> But they don't match, so we can't unify them?
>
> #define SIFCTR_TFWM_1           (7UL << 29)     /*  Transfer Request when 1 empty stage */
>
> vs
>
> #define SIFCTR_RFWM_1           (0 << 13)       /*  Transfer Request when 1 valid stages */
>
> Also, the steps don't match (1, 4, 8, 12..) vs (1, 4, 8, 16...).

I stand corrected...

/me looks envious for a brown paper bag...

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68korg

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds