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

Message-ID: <CAC9-QvBZTcobu538=5fUDxm=xnsR+4SbzVF3su69fMPH7R_wzw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Jul 2019 21:52:05 +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 20:20, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 06:41:41PM +0200, Sergej Benilov wrote:
> > 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.
>
> checkpatch just checks for things like tabs vs space.
>
> I would expect the indentation to be more like:
>
>
>         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);
>         } 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;
>

Ok, I see now what you mean.
I fixed the alignment.

This patch is superseded.

> > > 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'.
>
> O.K.
>
>         Andrew