| Message ID | 1627635002-24521-9-git-send-email-chunfeng.yun@mediatek.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [01/11] dt-bindings: usb: mtk-xhci: add support property 'tpl-support' | expand |
Hi Chunfeng, On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 4:50 PM Chunfeng Yun <chunfeng.yun@mediatek.com> wrote: > > check_sch_tt() will access fs_bus_bw[] array, check boundary > firstly to avoid out-of-bounds issue. > > Signed-off-by: Chunfeng Yun <chunfeng.yun@mediatek.com> > --- > drivers/usb/host/xhci-mtk-sch.c | 7 ++++--- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mtk-sch.c b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mtk-sch.c > index 10c0f0f6461f..c2f13d69c607 100644 > --- a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mtk-sch.c > +++ b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mtk-sch.c > @@ -600,13 +600,14 @@ static int check_sch_bw(struct mu3h_sch_bw_info *sch_bw, > * and find a microframe where its worst bandwidth is minimum. > */ > for (offset = 0; offset < sch_ep->esit; offset++) { > - ret = check_sch_tt(sch_ep, offset); > - if (ret) > - continue; > > if ((offset + sch_ep->num_budget_microframes) > esit_boundary) > break; Instead of dropping it, I'm wondering if it should be checked against (offset & 63) == 0 when it's 64? > > + ret = check_sch_tt(sch_ep, offset); > + if (ret) > + continue; > + > worst_bw = get_max_bw(sch_bw, sch_ep, offset); > if (worst_bw > bw_boundary) > continue; > -- > 2.18.0 >
On Mon, 2021-08-09 at 15:32 +0800, Ikjoon Jang wrote: > Hi Chunfeng, > > On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 4:50 PM Chunfeng Yun < > chunfeng.yun@mediatek.com> wrote: > > > > check_sch_tt() will access fs_bus_bw[] array, check boundary > > firstly to avoid out-of-bounds issue. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chunfeng Yun <chunfeng.yun@mediatek.com> > > --- > > drivers/usb/host/xhci-mtk-sch.c | 7 ++++--- > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mtk-sch.c > > b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mtk-sch.c > > index 10c0f0f6461f..c2f13d69c607 100644 > > --- a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mtk-sch.c > > +++ b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mtk-sch.c > > @@ -600,13 +600,14 @@ static int check_sch_bw(struct > > mu3h_sch_bw_info *sch_bw, > > * and find a microframe where its worst bandwidth is > > minimum. > > */ > > for (offset = 0; offset < sch_ep->esit; offset++) { > > - ret = check_sch_tt(sch_ep, offset); > > - if (ret) > > - continue; > > > > if ((offset + sch_ep->num_budget_microframes) > > > esit_boundary) > > break; > > Instead of dropping it, > I'm wondering if it should be checked against (offset & 63) == 0 when > it's 64? No, sch_ep->esit already ensure it, it's <= 64, see get_esit() > > > > > + ret = check_sch_tt(sch_ep, offset); > > + if (ret) > > + continue; > > + > > worst_bw = get_max_bw(sch_bw, sch_ep, offset); > > if (worst_bw > bw_boundary) > > continue; > > -- > > 2.18.0 > >
diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mtk-sch.c b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mtk-sch.c index 10c0f0f6461f..c2f13d69c607 100644 --- a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mtk-sch.c +++ b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mtk-sch.c @@ -600,13 +600,14 @@ static int check_sch_bw(struct mu3h_sch_bw_info *sch_bw, * and find a microframe where its worst bandwidth is minimum. */ for (offset = 0; offset < sch_ep->esit; offset++) { - ret = check_sch_tt(sch_ep, offset); - if (ret) - continue; if ((offset + sch_ep->num_budget_microframes) > esit_boundary) break; + ret = check_sch_tt(sch_ep, offset); + if (ret) + continue; + worst_bw = get_max_bw(sch_bw, sch_ep, offset); if (worst_bw > bw_boundary) continue;
check_sch_tt() will access fs_bus_bw[] array, check boundary firstly to avoid out-of-bounds issue. Signed-off-by: Chunfeng Yun <chunfeng.yun@mediatek.com> --- drivers/usb/host/xhci-mtk-sch.c | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)