netdev - Re: [PATCH] sis900: add support for ethtool --eeprom-dump

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: <CAC9-QvATLW0uCzGpeY1kLXs5BBsfNBF_BKCnCz+38_f+STJhog@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Jul 2019 18:41:41 +0200
From:   Sergej Benilov <sergej.benilov@...glemail.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     venza@...wnhat.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sis900: add support for ethtool --eeprom-dump

On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 18:25, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
>
> > +static int sis900_read_eeprom(struct net_device *net_dev, u8 *buf)
> > +{
> > +     struct sis900_private *sis_priv = netdev_priv(net_dev);
> > +     void __iomem *ioaddr = sis_priv->ioaddr;
> > +     int wait, ret = -EAGAIN;
> > +     u16 signature;
> > +     u16 *ebuf = (u16 *)buf;
> > +     int i;
> > +
> > +     if (sis_priv->chipset_rev == SIS96x_900_REV) {
> > +             sw32(mear, EEREQ);
> > +             for (wait = 0; wait < 2000; wait++) {
> > +                     if (sr32(mear) & EEGNT) {
> > +                             /* read 16 bits, and index by 16 bits */
> > +                             for (i = 0; i < sis_priv->eeprom_size / 2; i++)
> > +                                     ebuf[i] = (u16)read_eeprom(ioaddr, i);
> > +                     ret = 0;
> > +                     break;
> > +                     }
> > +             udelay(1);
> > +             }
> > +     sw32(mear, EEDONE);
>
> The indentation looks all messed up here.

This has passed ./scripts/checkpatch.pl, as you had suggested for the
previous patch.

>
> > +     } else {
> > +             signature = (u16)read_eeprom(ioaddr, EEPROMSignature);
> > +             if (signature != 0xffff && signature != 0x0000) {
> > +                     /* read 16 bits, and index by 16 bits */
> > +                     for (i = 0; i < sis_priv->eeprom_size / 2; i++)
> > +                             ebuf[i] = (u16)read_eeprom(ioaddr, i);
> > +                     ret = 0;
> > +             }
> > +     }
> > +     return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +#define SIS900_EEPROM_MAGIC  0xBABE
> > +static int sis900_get_eeprom(struct net_device *dev, struct ethtool_eeprom *eeprom, u8 *data)
> > +{
> > +     struct sis900_private *sis_priv = netdev_priv(dev);
> > +     u8 *eebuf;
> > +     int res;
> > +
> > +     eebuf = kmalloc(sis_priv->eeprom_size, GFP_KERNEL);
> > +     if (!eebuf)
> > +             return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +     eeprom->magic = SIS900_EEPROM_MAGIC;
> > +     spin_lock_irq(&sis_priv->lock);
> > +     res = sis900_read_eeprom(dev, eebuf);
> > +     spin_unlock_irq(&sis_priv->lock);
> > +     if (!res)
> > +             memcpy(data, eebuf + eeprom->offset, eeprom->len);
> > +     kfree(eebuf);
>
> Why do you not put the data directly into data and avoid this memory
> allocation, and memcpy?

Because EEPROM data from 'eeprom->offset' offset and of 'eeprom->len'
length only is expected to be returned in 'data'.

>
>             Andrew