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:   Mon, 13 May 2019 22:12:58 +0200
From:   Heiner Kallweit <>
To:     Trent Piepho <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>
Cc:     "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] net: phy: dp83867: Use unsigned variables to store
 unsigned properties

On 13.05.2019 21:58, Trent Piepho wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-05-11 at 14:32 +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>> On 11.05.2019 12:41, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>>> On 10.05.2019 23:46, Trent Piepho wrote:
>>>> The variables used to store u32 DT properties were signed
>>>> ints.  This
>>>> doesn't work properly if the value of the property were to
>>>> overflow.
>>>> Use unsigned variables so this doesn't happen.
>>> In patch 3 you added a check for DT properties being out of range.
>>> I think this would be good also for the three properties here.
>>> The delay values are only 4 bits wide, so you might also consider
>>> to switch to u8 or u16.
>> I briefly looked over the rest of the driver. What is plain wrong
>> is to allocate memory for the private data structure in the
>> config_init callback. This has to be done in the probe callback.
>> An example is marvell_probe(). As you seem to work on this driver,
>> can you provide a patch for this?
> It only allocates the data once, so it is not a memory leak.  But yes,
> totally wrong place to do it.  I can fix this.  It also does not set
> the signal line impedance from DT value unless unless also configuring
> clock skew, even though they are orthogonal concepts.  And fails to
> verify anything read from the DT.
> Perhaps you could tell me if the approach I've taken in patch 3, 
> "Add ability to disable output clock", and patch 4, "Disable tx/rx
> delay when not configured", are considered acceptable?  I can conceive
> of arguments for alternate approaches.  I would like to add support for
>  these into u-boot too, but typically u-boot follows the kernel DT
> bindings, so I want to finalize the kernel DT semantics before sending
> patches to u-boot.
I lack experience with these TI PHY's. Maybe Andrew or Florian can advise.

>>> Please note that net-next is closed currently. Please resubmit the
>>> patches once it's open again, and please annotate them properly
>>> with net-next.
> Sorry, didn't know about this policy.  Been years since I've submitted
> net patches.  Is there a description somewhere of how this is done? 
> Googling net-next wasn't helpful.  I gather new patches are only
> allowed when the kernel merge window is open?  And they can't be queued
> on patchwork or a topic branch until this happens?

And the easy way to check whether net-next is open:

Powered by blists - more mailing lists