linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] hwmon: Add driver for TI INA232 Current and Power Monitor

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: <CAAfUjZF7jOoZz5h6XkxqOyt=x8xnv+SUbMWJ1bVdxUzFRTO8cA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 16:02:20 +0800
From: Leo Yang <leo.yang.sy0@...il.com>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: jdelvare@...e.com, robh@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, 
	krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, Leo-Yang@...ntatw.com, 
	corbet@....net, Delphine_CC_Chiu@...ynn.com, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, 
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] hwmon: Add driver for TI INA232 Current and Power Monitor

Hi Guenter,

On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 12:22 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>
> > +
> > +     /* If INA233 skips current/power, shunt-resistor and current-lsb aren't needed. */
> > +     /* read rshunt value (uOhm) */
> > +     if (of_property_read_u32(client->dev.of_node, "shunt-resistor", &rshunt) < 0)
> > +             rshunt = INA233_RSHUNT_DEFAULT;
> > +
> > +     /* read current_lsb value (uA) */
> > +     if (of_property_read_u16(client->dev.of_node, "ti,current-lsb", &current_lsb) < 0)
> > +             current_lsb = INA233_CURRENT_LSB_DEFAULT;
> > +
> of_property_read_u16() returns -EOVERFLOW if the value provided was too large.
> This should be checked to avoid situations where the value provided in devicetree
> is too large.
>
Sorry I have a question, I can't get it to return -EOVERFLOW when I test it
I am using the following properties:
test16 = /bits/ 16 <0xfffd>;
of_property_read_u16 reads 0xfffd

test16o = /bits/ 16 <0xfffdd>;
of_property_read_u16 reads 0xffdd

test16o = <0xfffdd>;
of_property_read_u16 reads 0xf

test16array = /bits/ 16 <0xfffd 0xfffe>;
of_property_read_u16 reads 0xfffd

The same result for device_property_read_u16, it seems that a data
truncation occurs and none of them return -EOVERFLOW.

So maybe there is no need to check EOVERFLOW?
Or maybe we could use the minimum and maximum of the binding to
indicate the range.


Best Regards,

Leo Yang