public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Matlack <matlackdavid@gmail.com>
To: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
	liodot@gmail.com, charrer@alacritech.com,
	dan.carpenter@oracle.com, David Matlack <matlackdavid@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH V2 1/2] staging: slicoss: fix eeprom checksum code
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 22:03:59 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1400562240-15159-2-git-send-email-matlackdavid@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1400562240-15159-1-git-send-email-matlackdavid@gmail.com>

Rewrite slic_eeprom_cksum() to fix bugs and make readable. This patch
technically has no effect on the user as failed eeprom checksums are
ignored anyway.

The original implementation had the following issues:

  1. 2 of the 3 unrolled loops had the following bug:

       while ((len -= 32) >= 0) {
               [...]
               sum += w[15];
               w = (u16 *)((ulong) w + 16);    /* verify */
       }

     This processes 32-bytes of data but only increments the word
     pointer by 16 bytes. Fixing both of these bugs seems to fix
     slic_eeprom_cksum().

  2. Non-descriptive variable names, use of unions, and macros that
     change local state make the code difficult to read.

  3. The checksum loop is unrolled which makes the code harder to
     reason about while providing small performance improvement:
      - max eeprom length is 0x80 bytes (MAX_EECODE_SIZE), that's
        only 0x40 iterations
      - checksum is only computed during pci probe(), so not very
        often

Tested on Mojave card

Signed-off-by: David Matlack <matlackdavid@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/staging/slicoss/slicoss.c | 110 ++++++--------------------------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 95 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/slicoss/slicoss.c b/drivers/staging/slicoss/slicoss.c
index dba6a00..9eb2434 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/slicoss/slicoss.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/slicoss/slicoss.c
@@ -1138,105 +1138,26 @@ static int slic_config_get(struct adapter *adapter, u32 config, u32 config_h)
 }
 
 /*
- *  this is here to checksum the eeprom, there is some ucode bug
- *  which prevens us from using the ucode result.
- *  remove this once ucode is fixed.
+ * Compute a checksum of the EEPROM according to RFC 1071.
  */
-static ushort slic_eeprom_cksum(char *m, int len)
+static u16 slic_eeprom_cksum(void *eeprom, unsigned len)
 {
-#define ADDCARRY(x)  (x > 65535 ? x -= 65535 : x)
-#define REDUCE {l_util.l = sum; sum = l_util.s[0] + l_util.s[1]; ADDCARRY(sum);\
-		}
+	u16 *wp = eeprom;
+	u32 checksum = 0;
 
-	u16 *w;
-	u32 sum = 0;
-	u32 byte_swapped = 0;
-	u32 w_int;
-
-	union {
-		char c[2];
-		ushort s;
-	} s_util;
-
-	union {
-		ushort s[2];
-		int l;
-	} l_util;
-
-	l_util.l = 0;
-	s_util.s = 0;
-
-	w = (u16 *)m;
-#if BITS_PER_LONG == 64
-	w_int = (u32) ((ulong) w & 0x00000000FFFFFFFF);
-#else
-	w_int = (u32) (w);
-#endif
-	if ((1 & w_int) && (len > 0)) {
-		REDUCE;
-		sum <<= 8;
-		s_util.c[0] = *(unsigned char *)w;
-		w = (u16 *)((char *)w + 1);
-		len--;
-		byte_swapped = 1;
+	while (len > 1) {
+		checksum += *(wp++);
+		len -= 2;
 	}
 
-	/* Unroll the loop to make overhead from branches &c small. */
-	while ((len -= 32) >= 0) {
-		sum += w[0];
-		sum += w[1];
-		sum += w[2];
-		sum += w[3];
-		sum += w[4];
-		sum += w[5];
-		sum += w[6];
-		sum += w[7];
-		sum += w[8];
-		sum += w[9];
-		sum += w[10];
-		sum += w[11];
-		sum += w[12];
-		sum += w[13];
-		sum += w[14];
-		sum += w[15];
-		w = (u16 *)((ulong) w + 16);	/* verify */
-	}
-	len += 32;
-	while ((len -= 8) >= 0) {
-		sum += w[0];
-		sum += w[1];
-		sum += w[2];
-		sum += w[3];
-		w = (u16 *)((ulong) w + 4);	/* verify */
-	}
-	len += 8;
-	if (len != 0 || byte_swapped != 0) {
-		REDUCE;
-		while ((len -= 2) >= 0)
-			sum += *w++;	/* verify */
-		if (byte_swapped) {
-			REDUCE;
-			sum <<= 8;
-			byte_swapped = 0;
-			if (len == -1) {
-				s_util.c[1] = *(char *) w;
-				sum += s_util.s;
-				len = 0;
-			} else {
-				len = -1;
-			}
+	if (len > 0)
+		checksum += *(u8 *) wp;
 
-		} else if (len == -1) {
-			s_util.c[0] = *(char *) w;
-		}
 
-		if (len == -1) {
-			s_util.c[1] = 0;
-			sum += s_util.s;
-		}
-	}
-	REDUCE;
-	return (ushort) sum;
+	while (checksum >> 16)
+		checksum = (checksum & 0xFFFF) + ((checksum >> 16) & 0xFFFF);
+
+	return ~checksum;
 }
 
 static void slic_rspqueue_free(struct adapter *adapter)
@@ -2893,9 +2814,8 @@ static int slic_card_init(struct sliccard *card, struct adapter *adapter)
 			/*
 			    calculate the EEPROM checksum
 			*/
-			calc_chksum =
-			    ~slic_eeprom_cksum((char *) peeprom,
-					       (eecodesize - 2));
+			calc_chksum = slic_eeprom_cksum(peeprom,
+							eecodesize - 2);
 			/*
 			    if the ucdoe chksum flag bit worked,
 			    we wouldn't need this
-- 
1.9.2


  reply	other threads:[~2014-05-20  5:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-05-20  5:03 [PATCH V2 0/2] staging: slicoss: fix checksum computation David Matlack
2014-05-20  5:03 ` David Matlack [this message]
2014-05-20  5:04 ` [PATCH V2 2/2] staging: slicoss: fail on corrupt eeprom David Matlack
2014-05-20  8:27   ` Dan Carpenter
2014-05-20 16:11     ` David Matlack

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1400562240-15159-2-git-send-email-matlackdavid@gmail.com \
    --to=matlackdavid@gmail.com \
    --cc=charrer@alacritech.com \
    --cc=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
    --cc=devel@driverdev.osuosl.org \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=liodot@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox