linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V1] mmc: core: Correction a warning caused by incorrect type in assignment for UHS-II

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: <72b5788d-8b48-4794-8faf-9dab15e71e96@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2024 09:44:03 +0200
From: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
To: Victor Shih <victorshihgli@...il.com>, ulf.hansson@...aro.org
Cc: linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 benchuanggli@...il.com, HL.Liu@...esyslogic.com.tw,
 Greg.tu@...esyslogic.com.tw, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
 Ben Chuang <ben.chuang@...esyslogic.com.tw>,
 Victor Shih <victor.shih@...esyslogic.com.tw>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1] mmc: core: Correction a warning caused by incorrect
 type in assignment for UHS-II

On 5/11/24 12:29, Victor Shih wrote:
> From: Victor Shih <victor.shih@...esyslogic.com.tw>
> 
> There is a type issue in the assignment in the sd_uhs2_dev_init()
> that will generate a warning when building the kernel.
> 
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202411051248.wvjHSFNj-lkp@intel.com/
> Signed-off-by: Ben Chuang <ben.chuang@...esyslogic.com.tw>
> Signed-off-by: Victor Shih <victor.shih@...esyslogic.com.tw>

It is OK for now, so:

Acked-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>

However it looks like in some other cases, the payload byte
order is wrong, but the value is zero which works anyway.
The UHS-II spec is a bit confusing because it says the DWORDs
are big endian, but the registers are 64-bits, so does that
mean the payload byte order is 3,2,1,0,7,6,5,4 ?

Perhaps someone could check.  I don't have time right now,
sorry.

> ---
>  drivers/mmc/core/sd_uhs2.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/sd_uhs2.c b/drivers/mmc/core/sd_uhs2.c
> index c5847a2084d5..1c31d0dfa961 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/sd_uhs2.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/sd_uhs2.c
> @@ -181,7 +181,7 @@ static int sd_uhs2_dev_init(struct mmc_host *host)
>  			    UHS2_DEV_INIT_COMPLETE_FLAG |
>  			    ((gd & 0xF) << 4) |
>  			    (gap & 0xF);
> -		uhs2_cmd.payload[0] = payload0;
> +		uhs2_cmd.payload[0] = (__force __be32)payload0;
>  
>  		sd_uhs2_cmd_assemble(&cmd, &uhs2_cmd, UHS2_DEV_INIT_PAYLOAD_LEN,
>  				     UHS2_DEV_INIT_RESP_LEN);