linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] wifi: iwlwifi: pcie: ensure RX_QUEUE_CB

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250614092117.355e45c7@pumpkin>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2025 09:21:17 +0100
From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>
To: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
 miriam.rachel.korenblit@...el.com, dan.carpenter@...aro.org, arnd@...db.de,
 linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Linux Kernel
 Functional Testing <lkft@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: iwlwifi: pcie: ensure RX_QUEUE_CB_SIZE fits
 bitfield for gcc-8|9

On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 21:33:44 +0200
Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org> wrote:

> On 2025-06-12 17:21, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/ctxt-info.c b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/ctxt-info.c
> > > index cb36baac14da..1854d071aff2 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/ctxt-info.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/ctxt-info.c
> > > @@ -204,9 +204,10 @@ int iwl_pcie_ctxt_info_init(struct iwl_trans *trans,
> > >  
> > >  	WARN_ON(RX_QUEUE_CB_SIZE(iwl_trans_get_num_rbds(trans)) > 12);
> > >  	control_flags = IWL_CTXT_INFO_TFD_FORMAT_LONG;
> > > -	control_flags |=
> > > -		u32_encode_bits(RX_QUEUE_CB_SIZE(iwl_trans_get_num_rbds(trans)),
> > > -				IWL_CTXT_INFO_RB_CB_SIZE);
> > > +	/* This should just be u32_encode_bits() but gcc-8 and gcc-9 fail to build */
> > > +	control_flags |= FIELD_PREP(IWL_CTXT_INFO_RB_CB_SIZE,
> > > +		RX_QUEUE_CB_SIZE(iwl_trans_get_num_rbds(trans)) &
> > > +		FIELD_MAX(IWL_CTXT_INFO_RB_CB_SIZE));
> > >   
> > 
> > The coding style is really confusing now though - what are arguments to
> > the macro and all that.  
> 
> Would it help if I indent like this?
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/ctxt-info.c b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/ctxt-info.c
> index cb36baac14da..5bb81ed7db79 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/ctxt-info.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/ctxt-info.c
> @@ -204,9 +204,10 @@ int iwl_pcie_ctxt_info_init(struct iwl_trans *trans,
>  
>  	WARN_ON(RX_QUEUE_CB_SIZE(iwl_trans_get_num_rbds(trans)) > 12);
>  	control_flags = IWL_CTXT_INFO_TFD_FORMAT_LONG;
> -	control_flags |=
> -		u32_encode_bits(RX_QUEUE_CB_SIZE(iwl_trans_get_num_rbds(trans)),
> -				IWL_CTXT_INFO_RB_CB_SIZE);
> +	/* This should just be u32_encode_bits() but gcc-8 and gcc-9 fail to build */
> +	control_flags |= FIELD_PREP(IWL_CTXT_INFO_RB_CB_SIZE,
> +				    RX_QUEUE_CB_SIZE(iwl_trans_get_num_rbds(trans)) &
> +				    FIELD_MAX(IWL_CTXT_INFO_RB_CB_SIZE));

I would always indent the 'continued' part of an arithmetic expression.
Otherwise it looks (in this case) like another argument to FIELD_PREP().
(Not helped by the coding style requiring the '&' on the end of the line
rather than the start of the continuation line.)

	David


>  	control_flags |= u32_encode_bits(rb_size, IWL_CTXT_INFO_RB_SIZE);
>  	ctxt_info->control.control_flags = cpu_to_le32(control_flags);
>  
> 
> Cheers,
> Anders
>