Hi all,
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 11:37:14 +1100 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 14:01:35 -0600 Scott Wood wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 06:42 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi Timur,
> > >
> > > On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 07:25:45 -0600 Timur Tabi wrote:
> > >
> > > >
On 21.02.2020 01:57, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 11:37:14 +1100 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 14:01:35 -0600 Scott Wood wrote:
On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 06:42 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi Timur,
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 07:25:45 -0600 Timur Tabi wro
Hi Laurentiu,
On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 11:54:17 +0200 Laurentiu Tudor
wrote:
>
> On 21.02.2020 01:57, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 11:37:14 +1100 Stephen Rothwell
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 14:01:35 -0600 Scott Wood wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 2020-01-16 at
On 25.02.2020 22:56, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi Laurentiu,
On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 11:54:17 +0200 Laurentiu Tudor
wrote:
On 21.02.2020 01:57, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 11:37:14 +1100 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 14:01:35 -0600 Scott Wood wrote:
On Thu
On Thu, 2020-01-09 at 07:39:12 UTC, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> ev_byte_channel_send() assumes that its third argument is a 16 byte array.
> Some places where it is called it may not be (or we can't easily tell
> if it is). Newer compilers have started producing warnings about this,
> so make sure w
Stephen Rothwell writes:
> ev_byte_channel_send() assumes that its third argument is a 16 byte array.
> Some places where it is called it may not be (or we can't easily tell
> if it is). Newer compilers have started producing warnings about this,
> so make sure we actually pass a 16 byte array.
>
On 1/13/20 6:26 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
I've never heard of it, and I have no idea how to test it.
It's not used by qemu, I guess there is/was a Freescale hypervisor that
used it.
Yes, there is/was a Freescale hypervisor that I and a few others worked
on. I've added a couple people on CC
Hello,
On 13.01.2020 15:48, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On 1/13/20 6:26 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> I've never heard of it, and I have no idea how to test it.
>>
>> It's not used by qemu, I guess there is/was a Freescale hypervisor that
>> used it.
>
> Yes, there is/was a Freescale hypervisor that I a
On 1/13/20 8:34 AM, Laurentiu Tudor wrote:
There are a few users that I know of, but I can't tell if that's enough
to justify keeping the driver.
[1]https://source.codeaurora.org/external/qoriq/qoriq-yocto-sdk/hypervisor/
IIRC, the driver is the only reasonable way to get a serial console from
On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 1:41 AM Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> ev_byte_channel_send() assumes that its third argument is a 16 byte array.
> Some places where it is called it may not be (or we can't easily tell
> if it is). Newer compilers have started producing warnings about this,
> so make sure we
Hi Timur,
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 10:03:18 -0600 Timur Tabi wrote:
>
> Why not simply correct the parameters of ev_byte_channel_send?
>
> static inline unsigned int ev_byte_channel_send(unsigned int handle,
> -unsigned int *count, const char buffer[EV_BYTE_CHANNEL_MAX_BYTES])
> +unsigned int *count,
On 1/13/20 2:25 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
The problem is not really the declaration, the problem is that
ev_byte_channel_send always accesses 16 bytes from the buffer and it is
not always passed a buffer that long (in one case it is passed a
pointer to a single byte). So the alternative to the
Laurentiu Tudor writes:
> Hello,
>
> On 13.01.2020 15:48, Timur Tabi wrote:
>> On 1/13/20 6:26 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>> I've never heard of it, and I have no idea how to test it.
>>>
>>> It's not used by qemu, I guess there is/was a Freescale hypervisor that
>>> used it.
>>
>> Yes, there i
On 1/13/20 7:10 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
I would prefer that ev_byte_channel_send() is updated to access only
'count' bytes. If that means adding a memcpy to the
ev_byte_channel_send() itself, then so be it. Trying to figure out how
to stuff n bytes into 4 32-bit registers is probably not wort
On Mon, 2020-01-13 at 19:13 -0600, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On 1/13/20 7:10 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> > I would prefer that ev_byte_channel_send() is updated to access only
> > 'count' bytes. If that means adding a memcpy to the
> > ev_byte_channel_send() itself, then so be it. Trying to figure out ho
Hi Timur,
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 19:10:11 -0600 Timur Tabi wrote:
>
> On 1/13/20 2:25 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > The problem is not really the declaration, the problem is that
> > ev_byte_channel_send always accesses 16 bytes from the buffer and it is
> > not always passed a buffer that long (i
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 07:10:11PM -0600, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Ah, I see now. This is all coming back to me.
>
> I would prefer that ev_byte_channel_send() is updated to access only
> 'count' bytes. If that means adding a memcpy to the
> ev_byte_channel_send() itself, then so be it. Trying to
On 14.01.2020 03:10, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Laurentiu Tudor writes:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 13.01.2020 15:48, Timur Tabi wrote:
>>> On 1/13/20 6:26 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
I've never heard of it, and I have no idea how to test it.
It's not used by qemu, I guess there is/was a Free
On 1/14/20 3:18 AM, Laurentiu Tudor wrote:
I can offer myself. I'll send a MAINTAINERS patch if nobody is against it.
Yes, please do. I'm always available if you have any questions on the code.
On 1/14/20 2:29 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
You have no working lswx I suppose?:-)
I don't know if the P4080 supports lswx, but it does, than that would be
an elegant way to fix this bug.
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 05:53:41AM -0600, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On 1/14/20 2:29 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >You have no working lswx I suppose?:-)
>
> I don't know if the P4080 supports lswx, but it does, than that would be
> an elegant way to fix this bug.
No e500 version supports it. Many
erPC Mailing
> List ; sw...@redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] evh_bytechan: fix out of bounds accesses
>
> Hi Timur,
>
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 19:10:11 -0600 Timur Tabi wrote:
> >
> > On 1/13/20 2:25 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > The problem is not really
On 1/14/20 12:31 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
+/**
+ * ev_byte_channel_send - send characters to a byte stream
+ * @handle: byte stream handle
+ * @count: (input) num of chars to send, (output) num chars sent
+ * @bp: pointer to chars to send
+ *
+ * Returns 0 for success, or an error code.
+ */
+
Hi Timur,
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 07:25:45 -0600 Timur Tabi wrote:
>
> On 1/14/20 12:31 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > +/**
> > + * ev_byte_channel_send - send characters to a byte stream
> > + * @handle: byte stream handle
> > + * @count: (input) num of chars to send, (output) num chars sent
> > +
On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 06:42 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Timur,
>
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 07:25:45 -0600 Timur Tabi wrote:
> > On 1/14/20 12:31 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > +/**
> > > + * ev_byte_channel_send - send characters to a byte stream
> > > + * @handle: byte stream handle
> > >
Hi Scott,
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 14:01:35 -0600 Scott Wood wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 06:42 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Timur,
> >
> > On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 07:25:45 -0600 Timur Tabi wrote:
> > > On 1/14/20 12:31 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * ev_byte_channe
On 1/15/20 2:01 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
FWIW I'd rather see the original patch,
that keeps the raw asm hcall stuff as simple wrappers in one place.
I can live with that.
27 matches
Mail list logo