lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next v2 4/7] net: phy: mscc: read 'vsc8531,edge-slowdown' as an u32
Hi Andrew,

On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 10:05:54PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > Just to be sure, we're talking here about making sure the value stored
> > in the DT is not bigger than the specified value (here an u8)? If so,
> > that isn't the reason why I'm suggesting those two patches.
> >
> > Without /bits 8/ in the DT property, whatever were the values I put in
> > the property, I'd always get a 0. So I need to fix it either in the DT
> > (but Rob does not really like it) or in the driver.
>
> Hi Quentin
>
> Ah, you are fixing endian issues. That was not clear to me from the
> commit message.
>
> I don't know enough about how DT stores values in the blob. Is there
> type info? Can the DT core tell if a value in the blob is a u8 or a
> u32? It would be nice if it warned about reading a u8 from a u32
> blob.
>

From my quick research, the lower bound checking is performed by
of_property_read_u* functions but not the higher bound checking (the
internal function of_find_property_value_of_size allows higher bound
checking but it seems it's never used by those functions (see 0 in
sz_max of of_property_read_variable_u*_array)).

sz_max is used by of_property_read_variable_u*_array to copy at a
maximum of sz_max values in the output buffer. If sz_max is 0, it takes
sz_min so it's an array of definite size.
So since sz_max is 0 for all calls to of_property_read_variable_u*_array
by of_property_read_u*_array, we basically know we'll get a buffer of
sz_min values but we don't actually make use of the higher bound
checking of of_find_property_value_of_size.

We could enforce this higher bound check by, instead of setting sz_max
to 0, setting sz_max to sz_min in calls to of_property_read_u*_array.

But I guess there is a reason for sz_max being 0. Rob, Richard (commit
signer of this code) do you know why? Could you explain?

> Anyway, this change still removes some bounds checking. Are they
> important? Do they need to be added back?
>

The edge-slowdown and the vddmac values are compared against a const
array so we´re fine with those ones.

For the led-X-mode, I added a constant for supported modes that gets
checked when retrieving the DT property. So we´re fine here too.

Quentin
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-04 09:27    [W:0.041 / U:1.552 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site