netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net 0/5] net: ipa: minor bug fixes

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2f62dbe1-a1b3-a5f9-8cba-82cd8061ff9b@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 29 Oct 2020 11:50:52 -0500
From:   Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, evgreen@...omium.org, subashab@...eaurora.org,
        cpratapa@...eaurora.org, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
        sujitka@...omium.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net 0/5] net: ipa: minor bug fixes

On 10/29/20 11:11 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 14:41:43 -0500 Alex Elder wrote:
>> This series fixes several bugs.  They are minor, in that the code
>> currently works on supported platforms even without these patches
>> applied, but they're bugs nevertheless and should be fixed.
> 
> By which you mean "it seems to work just fine most of the time" or "the
> current code does not exercise this paths/functionally these bugs don't
> matter for current platforms".

The latter, although for patch 3 I'm not 100% sure.

Case by case:
Patch 1:
   It works.  I inquired what the consequence of passing this
   wrong buffer pointer was, and for the way we are using IPA
   it seems it's fine--the memory pointer we were assigning is
   not used, so it's OK.  But we're assigning the wrong pointer.
Patch 2:
   It works.  Even though the bit field is 1 bit wide (not two)
   we never actually write a value greater than 1, so we don't
   cause a problem.  But the definition is incorrect.
Patch 3:
   It works, but on the SDM845 we should be assigning the endpoints
   to use resource group 1 (they are 0 by default).  The way we
   currently use this upstream we don't have other endpoints
   competing for resources, so I think this is fine.  SC7180 we
   will assign endpoints to resource group 0, which is the default.
Patch 4:
   It works.  This is like patch 2; we define the number of these
   things incorrectly, but the way we currently use them we never
   exceed the limit in a broken way.
Patch 5:
   It works.  The maximum number of supported groups is even,
   and if a (smaller) odd number are used the remainder are
   programmed with 0, which is appropriate for undefined
   fields.

If you have any concerns about back-porting these fixes I
think I'm comfortable posting them for net-next instead.
I debated that before sending them out.  Please request that
if it's what you think would be best.

					-Alex