netdev - Re: [PATCH v5] can: add Renesas R-Car CAN driver

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: <52DD11B1.6020301@pengutronix.de>
Date:	Mon, 20 Jan 2014 13:08:17 +0100
From:	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
To:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>
CC:	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	wg@...ndegger.com, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
	Pavel Kiryukhin <vksavl@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] can: add Renesas R-Car CAN driver

On 01/20/2014 01:05 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 20/01/14 11:58, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/20/2014 12:52 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/20/2014 12:43 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Sergei Shtylyov
>>>>>> <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Changes in version 3:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - added '__packed' to 'struct rcar_can_mbox_regs' and 'struct
>>>>>>> rcar_can_regs';
>>>>>>> - removed unneeded type cast in the probe() method.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +/* Mailbox registers structure */
>>>>>>> +struct rcar_can_mbox_regs {
>>>>>>> +       u32 id;         /* IDE and RTR bits, SID and EID */
>>>>>>> +       u8 stub;        /* Not used */
>>>>>>> +       u8 dlc;         /* Data Length Code - bits [0..3] */
>>>>>>> +       u8 data[8];     /* Data Bytes */
>>>>>>> +       u8 tsh;         /* Time Stamp Higher Byte */
>>>>>>> +       u8 tsl;         /* Time Stamp Lower Byte */
>>>>>>> +} __packed;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I missed the earlier discussion, but why the _packed?
>>>>>> One u32 and 12 bytes makes a nice multiple of 4.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Better safe than sorry, it's the layout of the registers in hardware,
>>>>> don't let the compiler optimize here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually __packed makes it less safe, as the compiler now assumes
>>>> the u32 id member is unaligned, and thus may turn 32-bit accesses into 4
>>>> byte accesses.
>>>>
>>>> Fortunately it won't happen in this case as the code uses writel/readl to
>>>> acces the id member.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, as this are registers they must not be accessed directly. However
>>> we can use "__attribute__ ((packed, aligned(4)))" to tell the compiler
>>> that the base address of this struct is always aligned to 4 bytes.
>>
>> I thought we'd gotten past the stage of ever writing register
>> definitions as structures?
> 
> It allows to use e.g. "readl(&base->field)", which is used all over the place.
> 
> And sparse will inform you (read: the person who runs it) if you access
> it directly.

I'm doing this (however just started using additional -D__CHECK_FOO___),
before applying patches to my tree.

Marc

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                  | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Industrial Linux Solutions        | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Vertretung West/Dortmund          | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686  | http://www.pengutronix.de   |


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (243 bytes)