linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFT v2 4/5] i3c: mipi-i3c-hci: use get

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: <20250103134935.2a341ce0@pumpkin>
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2025 13:49:35 +0000
From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
Cc: linux-i3c@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, Rasmus Villemoes
 <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, Alexandre Belloni
 <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFT v2 4/5] i3c: mipi-i3c-hci: use get_parity8 helper
 instead of open coding it

On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 11:02:30 +0100
Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com> wrote:

> > > > > -		  (dynaddr_parity(address) ? DAT_0_DYNADDR_PARITY : 0);
> > > > > +		  (parity8(address) ? 0 : DAT_0_DYNADDR_PARITY);    
> 
> ...
> 
> > The old code is:  
> > > -static inline bool dynaddr_parity(unsigned int addr)
> > > -{
> > > -	addr |= 1 << 7;
> > > -	addr += addr >> 4;
> > > -	addr += addr >> 2;
> > > -	addr += addr >> 1;
> > > -	return (addr & 1);
> > > -}  
> > 
> > So:
> > 1) it always sets 0x80.  
> 
> Right, this is why the arguments of the ternary operator above are
> exchanged. The old function was basically 'is_odd'.

Provided the high bit isn't already set - which it may not be.

> > 2) it uses addition not exclusive or.  
> 
> True, but it will work nonetheless because we are only interested in bit
> 0 of the result. For one bit, XOR and addition are interchangable. The
> overflow to other bits is not important.

add: 00010001 => xxxx0010 => xx10 => x1
xor: 00010001 => xxxx0000 => 00xx => x0

> 
> > So just not the same definition of 'parity'.  
> 
> I think it is. I mean, I3C wants odd parity, otherwise it will not work.
> And Jarkko kindly confirmed it still works.

I bet the target isn't checking...

So you might be fixing a bug.

	David