linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] spi: tegra114: Don't fail set_cs

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: <00b119fb-1cbb-432d-a884-5b33696461e6@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2025 10:26:50 +0100
From: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
To: webgeek1234@...il.com, Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
 Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
 Mason Zhang <Mason.Zhang@...iatek.com>
Cc: linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: tegra114: Don't fail set_cs_timing when delays are
 zero


On 24/04/2025 03:03, Aaron Kling via B4 Relay wrote:
> From: Aaron Kling <webgeek1234@...il.com>
> 
> The original code would skip null delay pointers, but when the pointers
> were converted to point within the spi_device struct, the check was not
> updated to skip delays of zero. Hence all spi devices that didn't set
> delays would fail to probe.
> 
> Fixes: 04e6bb0d6bb1 ("spi: modify set_cs_timing parameter")
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Aaron Kling <webgeek1234@...il.com>
> ---
>   drivers/spi/spi-tegra114.c | 6 +++---
>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-tegra114.c b/drivers/spi/spi-tegra114.c
> index 3822d7c8d8edb9730e937df50d1c75e095dd18ec..2a8bb798e95b954fe573f1c50445ed2e7fcbfd78 100644
> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-tegra114.c
> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-tegra114.c
> @@ -728,9 +728,9 @@ static int tegra_spi_set_hw_cs_timing(struct spi_device *spi)
>   	u32 inactive_cycles;
>   	u8 cs_state;
>   
> -	if (setup->unit != SPI_DELAY_UNIT_SCK ||
> -	    hold->unit != SPI_DELAY_UNIT_SCK ||
> -	    inactive->unit != SPI_DELAY_UNIT_SCK) {
> +	if ((setup->unit && setup->unit != SPI_DELAY_UNIT_SCK) ||
> +	    (hold->unit && hold->unit != SPI_DELAY_UNIT_SCK) ||
> +	    (inactive->unit && inactive->unit != SPI_DELAY_UNIT_SCK)) {

The above does not look correct to me. For example, if 'setup->unit' is 
0, this means that the unit is 'SPI_DELAY_UNIT_USECS' and does not 
indicate that the delay is 0.

Shouldn't the above be ...

  if ((setup && setup->unit != SPI_DELAY_UNIT_SCK) ||
      (hold && hold->unit != SPI_DELAY_UNIT_SCK) ||
      (inactive && inactive->unit != SPI_DELAY_UNIT_SCK)) {

Jon

-- 
nvpublic