netdev - Re: [PATCH 3/4] net: can: ifi: Fix RX and TX ID mask

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, 01 Mar 2016 22:23:28 +0100
From:	Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>
To:	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>, linux-can@...r.kernel.org
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] net: can: ifi: Fix RX and TX ID mask

On 03/01/2016 06:49 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> Hi Marek,

Hi Oliver,

> On 02/29/2016 08:59 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> The RX and TX ID mask for CAN2.0 is 11 bits wide. This patch fixes
>> the incorrect mask, which caused the CAN IDs to miss the MSBit both
>> on receive and transmit.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>
>> Cc: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
>> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
>> Cc: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
>> Cc: Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/net/can/ifi_canfd/ifi_canfd.c | 4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/ifi_canfd/ifi_canfd.c b/drivers/net/can/ifi_canfd/ifi_canfd.c
>> index 82a33bd..6704098 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/can/ifi_canfd/ifi_canfd.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/can/ifi_canfd/ifi_canfd.c
>> @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@
>>  
>>  #define IFI_CANFD_RXFIFO_ID			0x6c
>>  #define IFI_CANFD_RXFIFO_ID_ID_OFFSET		0
>> -#define IFI_CANFD_RXFIFO_ID_ID_STD_MASK		0x3ff
>> +#define IFI_CANFD_RXFIFO_ID_ID_STD_MASK		0x7ff
>>  #define IFI_CANFD_RXFIFO_ID_ID_XTD_MASK		0x1fffffff
> 
> You should use the CAN_SFF_MASK and CAN_EFF_MASK in your code instead of
> defining you private IFI_CANFD_RXFIFO_ID_ID_?TD_MASK definitions.
> 
> You won't have trapped into this problem then :-)

These are register bitfield definitions, so should I really ?

My OCD kicks in and tells me it'd be odd and inconsistent with the rest
of the bitfields, but if you prefer it that way, I'll just send an
updated patch.

>>  #define IFI_CANFD_RXFIFO_ID_IDE			BIT(29)
>>  
>> @@ -156,7 +156,7 @@
>>  
>>  #define IFI_CANFD_TXFIFO_ID			0xbc
>>  #define IFI_CANFD_TXFIFO_ID_ID_OFFSET		0
>> -#define IFI_CANFD_TXFIFO_ID_ID_STD_MASK		0x3ff
>> +#define IFI_CANFD_TXFIFO_ID_ID_STD_MASK		0x7ff
>>  #define IFI_CANFD_TXFIFO_ID_ID_XTD_MASK		0x1fffffff
> 
> dito.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Oliver
> 
>>  #define IFI_CANFD_TXFIFO_ID_IDE			BIT(29)
>>  
>>


-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut