netdev - Re: [Patch net-next v1 11/12] net: dsa: microchip: ptp: add periodic output signal

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]

Date:   Wed, 30 Nov 2022 04:41:37 +0000
From:   <Arun.Ramadoss@...rochip.com>
To:     <pavan.chebbi@...adcom.com>
CC:     <andrew@...n.ch>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>, <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        <olteanv@...il.com>, <linux@...linux.org.uk>, <ceggers@...i.de>,
        <Tristram.Ha@...rochip.com>, <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        <kuba@...nel.org>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        <richardcochran@...il.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [Patch net-next v1 11/12] net: dsa: microchip: ptp: add periodic
 output signal

Hi Pavan,

On Tue, 2022-11-29 at 14:23 +0530, Pavan Chebbi wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 4:05 PM Arun Ramadoss
> <arun.ramadoss@...rochip.com> wrote:
> 
> > +static int ksz_ptp_enable(struct ptp_clock_info *ptp,
> > +                         struct ptp_clock_request *req, int on)
> > +{
> > +       struct ksz_ptp_data *ptp_data = ptp_caps_to_data(ptp);
> > +       struct ksz_device *dev = ptp_data_to_ksz_dev(ptp_data);
> > +       struct ptp_perout_request *request = &req->perout;
> > +       int ret;
> > +
> > +       switch (req->type) {
> > +       case PTP_CLK_REQ_PEROUT:
> > +               if (request->index > ptp->n_per_out)
> > +                       return -EINVAL;
> 
> Should be -EOPNOTSUPP ? I see some other places where -EOPNOTSUPP is
> more appropriate.

I got a offline comment like This check is probably redundant (already
checked in period_store() and ptp_ioctl()). I am looking into whether
this check is required or already handled in upper layers.
If the check is required, then I feel -EINVAL/-ERANGE should be
reasonable. Because we are supporting periodic output only thing is
index is out of bound. If we return -EOPNOTSUPP, it indicates we are
not supporting periodic output. 

> 
> > +
> > +               mutex_lock(&ptp_data->lock);
> > +               ret = ksz_ptp_enable_perout(dev, request, on);
> > +               mutex_unlock(&ptp_data->lock);
> > +               break;
> > +       default:
> > +               return -EINVAL;
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> >  /*  Function is pointer to the do_aux_work in the ptp_clock
> > capability */
> >  static long ksz_ptp_do_aux_work(struct ptp_clock_info *ptp)
> >  {
> > @@ -508,6 +823,8 @@ static const struct ptp_clock_info ksz_ptp_caps
> > = {
> >         .adjfine        = ksz_ptp_adjfine,
> >         .adjtime        = ksz_ptp_adjtime,
> >         .do_aux_work    = ksz_ptp_do_aux_work,
> > +       .enable         = ksz_ptp_enable,
> > +       .n_per_out      = 3,
> >  };
> >