Re: [PATCH V4] Fix pointer cast for 32 bits arch

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 08:36:51PM +0200, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-04-16 at 20:01 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> >> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 06:14:55PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Peter Senna Tschudin
> >> > <peter.senna@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > --- a/drivers/staging/goldfish/goldfish_audio.c
> >> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/goldfish/goldfish_audio.c
> >> > > @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ struct goldfish_audio {
> >> > >  #define AUDIO_READ(data, addr)         (readl(data->reg_base + addr))
> >> > >  #define AUDIO_WRITE(data, addr, x)     (writel(x, data->reg_base + addr))
> >> > >  #define AUDIO_WRITE64(data, addr, addr2, x)    \
> >> > > -       (gf_write64((u64)(x), data->reg_base + addr, data->reg_base+addr2))
> >> > > +       (gf_write_ptr((void *)(x), data->reg_base + addr, data->reg_base+addr2))
> >> >
> >> > This one should not be converted, as all callers pass a dma_addr_t, which may
> >> > be 64-bit on 32-bit systems, i.e. larger than void *.
> >>
> >> Ugh...  You're right.
> >>
> >> I've been avoiding asking this but I can't any longer.  What is
> >> gf_write64() actually doing?  We are writing dma addresses, user space
> >> pointers and kernel space pointers to this hardware?
> >>
> >> This stuff doesn't seem to make any kind of sense and I can easily
> >> imagine a situation where it wrote a 64 bit pointer.  Then we partially
> >> write over it with a 32 bit userspace pointer.  Then it writes somewhere
> >> totally unintended.
> >>
> >> This thing doesn't make any sort of sense to me.
> >
> > Its a 64 on 64 or 32 on 32 virtual machine. Goldfish is used for Android
> > emulation for all the system level phone emulation tools. On the
> > emulation side it provides an interface for the emulated OS but makes no
> > effort to emulate it as if it was a real hardware. If you think of it as
> > a funky emulator interface all is good. If you think about it as
> > "hardware" you've got the wrong model and chunks of Goldfish make less
> > sense.
> 
> Is is better to leave the code as is, and ignore the compiler / sparse
> warnings for i386? Or is the proposal welcome if done correctly? And
> if so what would be correctly?

What's the status with this mess?

Oh, and please, put a "staging: goldfish:" at the front of your subject
line in the future so I know to look at it, otherwise it gets lost at
times...

thanks,

greg k-h