netdev - Re: [PATCH V4 06/16] net: iosm: channel configuration

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: <CAHNKnsR-CnCr6qmMwyWwiF6DNtkGBqfpA5nUrBqVxWk0Ezb70Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 12 Jun 2021 04:09:37 +0300
From:   Sergey Ryazanov <ryazanov.s.a@...il.com>
To:     M Chetan Kumar <m.chetan.kumar@...el.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        krishna.c.sudi@...el.com, linuxwwan@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 06/16] net: iosm: channel configuration

Hello Chetan,

On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 8:07 PM M Chetan Kumar <m.chetan.kumar@...el.com> wrote:

[skipped]

> +/* Modem channel configuration table
> + * Always reserve element zero for flash channel.
> + */
> +static struct ipc_chnl_cfg modem_cfg[] = {
> +       /* IP Mux */
> +       { IPC_MEM_IP_CHL_ID_0, IPC_MEM_PIPE_0, IPC_MEM_PIPE_1,
> +         IPC_MEM_MAX_TDS_MUX_LITE_UL, IPC_MEM_MAX_TDS_MUX_LITE_DL,
> +         IPC_MEM_MAX_DL_MUX_LITE_BUF_SIZE, WWAN_PORT_MAX },

Since commit b64d76b78226 ("net: wwan: make WWAN_PORT_MAX meaning less
surprised") WWAN_PORT_MAX really means a maximum valid port type id.
At the moment the max value is WWAN_PORT_FIREHOSE. If I understand the
driver code correctly, you ignore WWAN_PORT_MAX ports in the
ipc_imem_run_state_worker() function. So using WWAN_PORT_MAX in this
way should not actually break anything.

Just as a FYI, Loic introduced a special value WWAN_PORT_UNKNOWN that
could be used to indicate a port that should not be registered with
the WWAN core. Looks like WWAN_PORT_UNKNOWN would be a safer
alternative here.

-- 
Sergey