[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6d4f0ef0-3c6b-417e-82e1-d7f2635f6733@lunn.ch>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 13:14:42 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Yangfl <mmyangfl@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/2] net: dsa: yt921x: Fix MIB overflow
wraparound routine
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/yt921x.c b/drivers/net/dsa/yt921x.c
> > > index ab762ffc4661..97a7eeb4ea15 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/dsa/yt921x.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/yt921x.c
> > > @@ -687,21 +687,22 @@ static int yt921x_read_mib(struct yt921x_priv *priv, int port)
> > > const struct yt921x_mib_desc *desc = &yt921x_mib_descs[i];
> > > u32 reg = YT921X_MIBn_DATA0(port) + desc->offset;
> > > u64 *valp = &((u64 *)mib)[i];
> > > - u64 val = *valp;
> > > + u64 val;
> > > u32 val0;
> > > - u32 val1;
> > >
> > > res = yt921x_reg_read(priv, reg, &val0);
> > > if (res)
> > > break;
> > >
> > > if (desc->size <= 1) {
> > > - if (val < (u32)val)
> > > - /* overflow */
> > > - val += (u64)U32_MAX + 1;
> > > - val &= ~U32_MAX;
> > > - val |= val0;
> > > + u64 old_val = *valp;
> > > +
> > > + val = (old_val & ~(u64)U32_MAX) | val0;
> > > + if (val < old_val)
> > > + val += 1ull << 32;
> > > } else {
> > > + u32 val1;
> > > +
> >
> > What David suggested, https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251024132117.43f39504@pumpkin/ was
> >
> > if (desc->size <= 1) {
> > u64 old_val = *valp;
> > val = upper32_bits(old_val) | val0;
> > if (val < old_val)
> > val += 1ull << 32;
> > }
> >
> > I believe there is a minor typo here, it should be upper_32_bits(),
> > but what you implemented is not really what David suggested.
> >
> > Andrew
>
> I didn't find the definition for upper32_bits, so...
You should of asked, or searched a bit harder, because what you
changed it to is different.
/**
* upper_32_bits - return bits 32-63 of a number
* @n: the number we're accessing
*
* A basic shift-right of a 64- or 32-bit quantity. Use this to suppress
* the "right shift count >= width of type" warning when that quantity is
* 32-bits.
*/
#define upper_32_bits(n) ((u32)(((n) >> 16) >> 16))
I don't see any shifting in your version.
And then i have to ask, which is correct?
How have you been testing this code? If this is TX bytes, for a 1G
link, it will overflow 32 bits in about 34 seconds. So a simple iperf
test could be used. If its TX packets, 64 byte packets could be done
in 5 hours.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists