linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 1/6] interconnect: icc-clk: Allow user to specify master/slave ids

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: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 12:08:40 +0100
From: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
To: Varadarajan Narayanan <quic_varada@...cinc.com>, andersson@...nel.org,
 mturquette@...libre.com, sboyd@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org,
 krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org,
 djakov@...nel.org, dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org, quic_anusha@...cinc.com,
 linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 1/6] interconnect: icc-clk: Allow user to specify
 master/slave ids

On 29/04/2024 10:13, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote:
>   	for (i = 0, j = 0; i < num_clocks; i++) {
>   		qp->clocks[i].clk = data[i].clk;
>   
> -		node = icc_node_create(first_id + j);
> +		node = icc_node_create(first_id + data[i].master_id);

You have a few conditionals in the way down the end of the existing 
for() loop but then you hit this

         onecell->nodes[j++] = node;
     }

which means that this

     node = icc_node_create(first_id + data[i].master_id);

is not analogous to this

     node = icc_node_create(first_id + j);

So for any loop of this for() where j was incremented previously you 
would not _not_ have the same node ids after your change.

In other words dropping the j index will result in different node numbering.

Is that

a) intended
b) correct

Your commit log says "allow the drive rto provide the preferred master 
ids and slave ids" which it does but it _also_ changes the autogenerated 
ids.

So could you either a) fix that or b) justify it, in your commit log.

Also I think the 8996 specific change should be in its own patch.

TBH I'm not sure the autogen change is on-purpose or warranted and for 
certain the commit log is not elucidating on which is the intended case.

I think you should rewrite this patch in two ways

1. Fix the autogen case or
1. Justify the change for the autogen case.
2. Separate drivers/clk/qcom/clk-cbf-8996.c into its own patch that
    applies directly after changing the core

Perhaps you've already gone through this debate with other reviewers but 
then you haven't captured that in your cover letter or commit log so at 
a minimum, please do that.

---
bod