netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] cxgb4: fix incorrect cim

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170530115333.GA12626@chelsio.com>
Date:   Tue, 30 May 2017 17:23:34 +0530
From:   Ganesh Goudar <ganeshgr@...lsio.com>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "nirranjan@...lsio.com" <nirranjan@...lsio.com>,
        "indranil@...lsio.com" <indranil@...lsio.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] cxgb4: fix incorrect cim_la output for T6

On Friday, May 05/19/17, 2017 at 14:17:11 +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Ganesh Goudar
> > Sent: 19 May 2017 11:12
> T6
> > 
> > take care of UpDbgLaRdPtr[0-3] restriction for T6
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ganesh Goudar <ganeshgr@...lsio.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/chelsio/cxgb4/t4_hw.c | 7 +++++++
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/chelsio/cxgb4/t4_hw.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/chelsio/cxgb4/t4_hw.c
> > index aded42b96..917b46b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/chelsio/cxgb4/t4_hw.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/chelsio/cxgb4/t4_hw.c
> > @@ -8268,6 +8268,13 @@ int t4_cim_read_la(struct adapter *adap, u32 *la_buf, unsigned int *wrptr)
> >  		if (ret)
> >  			break;
> >  		idx = (idx + 1) & UPDBGLARDPTR_M;
> > +
> > +		/* Bits 0-3 of UpDbgLaRdPtr can be between 0000 to 1001 to
> > +		 * identify the 32-bit portion of the full 312-bit data
> > +		 */
> > +		if (is_t6(adap->params.chip))
> > +			while ((idx & 0xf) > 9)
> > +				idx = (idx + 1) % UPDBGLARDPTR_M;
> 
> Why the loop, maybe:
> 		if (is_t6(adap->params.chip) && (idx & 0xf) >= 9)
> 			idx = (idx & 0xf0) + 0x10;
> 		else
> 			idx++;
> 		idx &= UPDBGLARDPTR_M;
> 
> 	David
>
Yes, it is sensible I will send a v2, thanks David.

Thanks