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]

Message-ID: <56D6C05A.9020503@denx.de>
Date:	Wed, 02 Mar 2016 11:28:42 +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 03/02/2016 07:10 AM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> Hi Marek,
> 
> On 03/01/2016 10:23 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 03/01/2016 06:49 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> 
> 
>>>> -#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.
>>
> 
> Your bit mask is masking the CAN ID out of a given variable.
> That's what CAN_SFF_MASK and CAN_EFF_MASK is made for.
> 
> So at least it should be:
> 
> #define IFI_CANFD_RXFIFO_ID_ID_STD_MASK		CAN_SFF_MASK
> #define IFI_CANFD_RXFIFO_ID_ID_XTD_MASK		CAN_EFF_MASK

This is good, I will do this. Thanks!

> Btw. These defines are _never_ referenced in ifi_canfd.c so they should be
> removed anyway.

The documentation for this core is not available, so if you don't mind,
I'd like to keep those.

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut