netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v10 1/8] hinic3: Async Event Queue interfaces

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: <20250731104934.26300-1-gongfan1@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 18:49:34 +0800
From: Fan Gong <gongfan1@...wei.com>
To: <horms@...nel.org>
CC: <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
	<corbet@....net>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	<fuguiming@...artners.com>, <gongfan1@...wei.com>, <guoxin09@...wei.com>,
	<gur.stavi@...wei.com>, <helgaas@...nel.org>, <jdamato@...tly.com>,
	<kuba@...nel.org>, <lee@...ger.us>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <luosifu@...wei.com>,
	<meny.yossefi@...wei.com>, <mpe@...erman.id.au>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<pabeni@...hat.com>, <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
	<shenchenyang1@...ilicon.com>, <shijing34@...wei.com>, <sumang@...vell.com>,
	<vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>, <wulike1@...wei.com>, <zhoushuai28@...wei.com>,
	<zhuyikai1@...artners.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v10 1/8] hinic3: Async Event Queue interfaces

> >
> > So the swapped data by HW is neither BE or LE. In this case, we should use
> > swab32 to obtain the correct LE data because our driver currently supports LE.
> > This is for compensating for bad HW decisions.
>
> Let us assume that the host is reading data provided by HW.
>
> If the swab32 approach works on a little endian host
> to allow the host to access 32-bit values in host byte order.
> Then this is because it outputs a 32-bit little endian values.
>
> But, given the same input, it will not work on a big endian host.
> This is because the same little endian output will be produced,
> while the host byte order is big endian.
>
> I think you need something based on be32_to_cpu()/cpu_to_be32().
> This will effectively be swab32 on little endian hosts (no change!).
> And a no-op on big endian hosts (addressing my point above).
>
> More specifically, I think you should use be32_to_cpu_array() and
> cpu_to_be32_array() instead of swab32_array().

Thanks. We'll take your suggestion.