netdev - Re: [PATCH net v4 1/2] sfc: use 64-bit writes for PIO.

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]

Date:	Tue, 03 Jun 2014 15:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	sshah@...arflare.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v4 1/2] sfc: use 64-bit writes for PIO.

From: Shradha Shah <sshah@...arflare.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 11:04:35 +0100

> +		writeq(src64[i], dest64+i);

What does writeq() do on a 32-bit machine?

Did you do any functional testing of this on such a machine?

I'm extremely disappointed in this patch submission, because you
didn't even _compile_ test this in the environment where you claim
the problem exists.

A 32-bit build with this patch applied results in:

  CC      drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tx.o
drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tx.c: In function ‘efx_memcpy_64’:
drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tx.c:203:3: error: implicit declaration of function ‘writeq’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
make[1]: *** [drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tx.o] Error 1
make: *** [drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tx.o] Error 2

This is an extremely _LOW_ quality patch submission.

You put very little time and effort into the changes I asked you to
make.  And clearly you did absolutely not functional testing of this
change, what if with the modification it didn't fix the bug any
longer?

It is imperitive that you take your time and go implement these
changes properly.  Yes, you can clearly see now that a proper
interface for writeq() is not provided that actually uses 64-bit
operations on 32-bit systems.  And yes, _you_ will need to resolve
this somehow.

And most importantly, you will need to both compile and functionally
test the change before you even think about posting it again here.

Thanks.