netdev - Re: [PATCH net] mscan: zero accidentally copied register content

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: <4E8D7065.8040905@grandegger.com>
Date:	Thu, 06 Oct 2011 11:09:57 +0200
From:	Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>
To:	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
CC:	Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andre Naujoks <nautsch@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] mscan: zero accidentally copied register content

Hi Oliver,

On 10/06/2011 09:02 AM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> On 10/05/11 18:10, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> 
>> On 10/05/11 17:51, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
>>>> +		/* zero accidentally copied register content at odd DLCs */
>>>> +		if (frame->can_dlc & 1)
>>>> +			frame->data[frame->can_dlc] = 0;
>>>>  	}
>>>>  
>>>>  	out_8(&regs->canrflg, MSCAN_RXF);
>>>
>>> Nice catch, but wouldn't it be more elegant to never have an invalid byte
>>> in the first place?
>>>
>>> if (can_dlc & 1)
>>> 	*payload = in_be16() & mask;
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hm, then i would rather think about changing the for() statement and to read
>> byte-by-byte instead of the current in_be16() usage with the 16bit access
>> drawbacks ...
>>
> 
> 
> I think if one would like to rework the 16bit register access (which is used
> in the rx path /and/ in the tx path also) this should go via net-next after
> some discussion and testing.

Why do you want to change 16-bit accesses in general? They are faster
than two 8 bit accesses. 

> IMHO this fix is small and clear and especially not risky. I wonder if
> reworking the 16 bit register access is worth the effort?

I would prefer:

 	if (!(frame->can_id & CAN_RTR_FLAG)) {
 		void __iomem *data = &regs->rx.dsr1_0;
 		u16 *payload = (u16 *)frame->data;
 
 		for (i = 0; i < frame->can_dlc / 2; i++) {
 			*payload++ = in_be16(data);
 			data += 2 + _MSCAN_RESERVED_DSR_SIZE;
 		}
		/* copy remaining byte */
		if (frame->can_dlc & 1)
			frame->data[frame->can_dlc - 1] = in_8(data);
 	}

Wolfgang.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html