From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69506C43141 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 07:44:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40B0D20740 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 07:44:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=rasmusvillemoes.dk header.i=@rasmusvillemoes.dk header.b="cimPOY7g" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727298AbfKOHoR (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Nov 2019 02:44:17 -0500 Received: from mail-lj1-f194.google.com ([209.85.208.194]:42964 "EHLO mail-lj1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727262AbfKOHoQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Nov 2019 02:44:16 -0500 Received: by mail-lj1-f194.google.com with SMTP id n5so9605414ljc.9 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:44:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rasmusvillemoes.dk; s=google; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MerzeYQd7mMrWj7xug82ip0Zzuk57QC86rO5mCSsEzs=; b=cimPOY7g4EAlwVyfr4cwpdgRJdBwRgLjtx/sUwL01IBFA4qPtm6hLBgyIKILrFzJM9 xiOtbLJf0y4FyFS5wuHNxaB4q8sFK2F7P67/5/RQWCsQ9oGFBnDTdc4D+B26iZzap9Qa gTUwq1Rz9t3IIvqDWNeazaS9zPcEWsGD6g1ZM= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=MerzeYQd7mMrWj7xug82ip0Zzuk57QC86rO5mCSsEzs=; b=LV3LpXQeuzT5d271eNPkfW/mNc+SPMtbjQ+Hhi5ulLH/eqjm/nME/tzJlZqoJA7GoM BE40+VeJUzHrb0xWzJtBGLuR2igvCDYzJ4WnfL6Fe6f8jjaoH3hvBxSP9ezvf2ZoY9vc DIHvMZMR1+tphPu3I9HjL/WyCaFxm26Ea3gjvoVl6NGKLGJWe/jsZtgtzFn/AbLm8Vyd Jmgjyt3YBAJD11ks+SGlhLJx3q4CAi19Pg/eXeRXSnr9udr8W1gKVrURW77C9LHJVla8 rPAVOio2dS9Mo4uv6+ysuoPJGXCri2Kn6q99y5+d9195EWG+nTNgZ5+VNFzCQUAfCySu 9KGg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU1BlaTTkPWK9ZnQV9Y3eM3eDVZbZUd8DhGgeOvhg16ajAym+pR W6b36OJsZfUjSES+Yca+NX/kYK9pgd4k4TP5 X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw8OAiLBu508szXHtSnz3QQioa3U2uijYFbTHFzEtm/A+7bHMI6CgvxmnwrGknlwyb2z4HUYw== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9784:: with SMTP id y4mr10091304lji.77.1573803854082; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:44:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.16.11.28] ([81.216.59.226]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p19sm3689755lji.65.2019.11.14.23.44.13 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:44:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 45/47] net/wan/fsl_ucc_hdlc: reject muram offsets above 64K To: Timur Tabi Cc: Qiang Zhao , Li Yang , Christophe Leroy , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-arm-kernel , lkml , Scott Wood , netdev References: <20191108130123.6839-1-linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> <20191108130123.6839-46-linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> From: Rasmus Villemoes Message-ID: <79101f00-e3ff-9dd0-7a05-760f8be1ff69@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 08:44:12 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On 15/11/2019 05.41, Timur Tabi wrote: > On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 7:04 AM Rasmus Villemoes > wrote: > >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wan/fsl_ucc_hdlc.c b/drivers/net/wan/fsl_ucc_hdlc.c >> index 8d13586bb774..f029eaa7cfc0 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/wan/fsl_ucc_hdlc.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/wan/fsl_ucc_hdlc.c >> @@ -245,6 +245,11 @@ static int uhdlc_init(struct ucc_hdlc_private *priv) >> ret = -ENOMEM; >> goto free_riptr; >> } >> + if (riptr != (u16)riptr || tiptr != (u16)tiptr) { > > "riptr/tiptr > U16_MAX" is clearer. > I can change it, sure, but it's a matter of taste. To me the above asks "does the value change when it is truncated to a u16" which makes perfect sense when the value is next used with iowrite16be(). Using a comparison to U16_MAX takes more brain cycles for me, because I have to think whether it should be > or >=, and are there some signedness/integer promotion business interfering with that test. Rasmus