Re: [PATCH net-next v5 05/14] net: fman: Map the base address once

On 10/17/22 11:15 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

Hi Sean,

On Sat, Sep 3, 2022 at 12:00 AM Sean Anderson [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

We don't need to remap the base address from the resource twice (once in
mac_probe() and again in set_fman_mac_params()). We still need the
resource to get the end address, but we can use a single function call
to get both at once.

While we're at it, use platform_get_mem_or_io and devm_request_resource
to map the resource. I think this is the more "correct" way to do things
here, since we use the pdev resource, instead of creating a new one.
It's still a bit tricky, since we need to ensure that the resource is a
child of the fman region when it gets requested.

Signed-off-by: Sean Anderson <redacted>
Acked-by: Camelia Groza <redacted>

Thanks for your patch, which is now commit 262f2b782e255b79
("net: fman: Map the base address once") in v6.1-rc1.

quoted

--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/dpaa/dpaa_eth_sysfs.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/dpaa/dpaa_eth_sysfs.c

@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ static ssize_t dpaa_eth_show_addr(struct device *dev,

        if (mac_dev)
                return sprintf(buf, "%llx",
-                               (unsigned long long)mac_dev->res->start);
+                               (unsigned long long)mac_dev->vaddr);

On 32-bit:

    warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size
[-Wpointer-to-int-cast]

Obviously you should cast to "uintptr_t" or "unsigned long" instead,
and change the "%llx" to "%p" or "%lx"...

Isn't there a %px for this purpose?

However, taking a closer look:
  1. The old code exposed a physical address to user space, the new
     code exposes the mapped virtual address.
     Is that change intentional?

No, this is not intentional. So to make this backwards-compatible, I
suppose I need a virt_to_phys?

  2. Virtual addresses are useless in user space.
     Moreover, addresses printed by "%p" are obfuscated, as this is
     considered a security issue. Likewise for working around this by
     casting to an integer.

Yes, you're right that this probably shouldn't be exposed to userspace.

What's the real purpose of dpaa_eth_show_addr()?

I have no idea. This is a question for Madalin.

Perhaps it should be removed?

That would be reasonable IMO.

--Sean

quoted

        else
                return sprintf(buf, "none");
 }

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds