* [PATCH v2 net-next] ptp: only allow phase values lower than 1 period
@ 2020-08-04 23:43 Vladimir Oltean
2020-08-05 0:04 ` Jacob Keller
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Vladimir Oltean @ 2020-08-04 23:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kuba, davem, netdev; +Cc: richardcochran, jacob.e.keller
The way we define the phase (the difference between the time of the
signal's rising edge, and the closest integer multiple of the period),
it doesn't make sense to have a phase value larger than 1 period.
So deny these settings coming from the user.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
---
Changes in v2:
Be sure to also deny the case where the period is equal to the phase.
This represents a 360 degree offset, which is equivalent to a phase of
zero, so it should be rejected on the grounds of having a modulo
equivalent as well.
drivers/ptp/ptp_chardev.c | 13 +++++++++++++
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/ptp/ptp_chardev.c b/drivers/ptp/ptp_chardev.c
index e0e6f85966e1..ee48eb61b49c 100644
--- a/drivers/ptp/ptp_chardev.c
+++ b/drivers/ptp/ptp_chardev.c
@@ -218,6 +218,19 @@ long ptp_ioctl(struct posix_clock *pc, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
break;
}
}
+ if (perout->flags & PTP_PEROUT_PHASE) {
+ /*
+ * The phase should be specified modulo the
+ * period, therefore anything larger than 1
+ * period is invalid.
+ */
+ if (perout->phase.sec > perout->period.sec ||
+ (perout->phase.sec == perout->period.sec &&
+ perout->phase.nsec >= perout->period.nsec)) {
+ err = -ERANGE;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
} else if (cmd == PTP_PEROUT_REQUEST) {
req.perout.flags &= PTP_PEROUT_V1_VALID_FLAGS;
req.perout.rsv[0] = 0;
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] ptp: only allow phase values lower than 1 period
2020-08-04 23:43 [PATCH v2 net-next] ptp: only allow phase values lower than 1 period Vladimir Oltean
@ 2020-08-05 0:04 ` Jacob Keller
2020-08-05 0:12 ` Vladimir Oltean
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jacob Keller @ 2020-08-05 0:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vladimir Oltean, kuba, davem, netdev; +Cc: richardcochran
On 8/4/2020 4:43 PM, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> The way we define the phase (the difference between the time of the
> signal's rising edge, and the closest integer multiple of the period),
> it doesn't make sense to have a phase value larger than 1 period.
>
> So deny these settings coming from the user.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> Be sure to also deny the case where the period is equal to the phase.
> This represents a 360 degree offset, which is equivalent to a phase of
> zero, so it should be rejected on the grounds of having a modulo
> equivalent as well.
>
> drivers/ptp/ptp_chardev.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/ptp/ptp_chardev.c b/drivers/ptp/ptp_chardev.c
> index e0e6f85966e1..ee48eb61b49c 100644
> --- a/drivers/ptp/ptp_chardev.c
> +++ b/drivers/ptp/ptp_chardev.c
> @@ -218,6 +218,19 @@ long ptp_ioctl(struct posix_clock *pc, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
> break;
> }
> }
> + if (perout->flags & PTP_PEROUT_PHASE) {
> + /*
> + * The phase should be specified modulo the
> + * period, therefore anything larger than 1
> + * period is invalid.
> + */
A nit: this could read "therefore anything equal or larger than 1 period
is invalid"? a number modulo itself is 0, right? and we use ">=" below
as well now.
I do think it's relatively clear from context so it probably isn't worth
a re-roll.
> + if (perout->phase.sec > perout->period.sec ||
> + (perout->phase.sec == perout->period.sec &&
> + perout->phase.nsec >= perout->period.nsec)) {
> + err = -ERANGE;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> } else if (cmd == PTP_PEROUT_REQUEST) {
> req.perout.flags &= PTP_PEROUT_V1_VALID_FLAGS;
> req.perout.rsv[0] = 0;
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] ptp: only allow phase values lower than 1 period
2020-08-05 0:04 ` Jacob Keller
@ 2020-08-05 0:12 ` Vladimir Oltean
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Vladimir Oltean @ 2020-08-05 0:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jacob Keller; +Cc: kuba, davem, netdev, richardcochran
On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 05:04:47PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
>
> A nit: this could read "therefore anything equal or larger than 1 period
> is invalid"? a number modulo itself is 0, right? and we use ">=" below
> as well now.
>
Thanks, I've corrected that too, now.
-Vladimir
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-08-05 0:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-08-04 23:43 [PATCH v2 net-next] ptp: only allow phase values lower than 1 period Vladimir Oltean
2020-08-05 0:04 ` Jacob Keller
2020-08-05 0:12 ` Vladimir Oltean
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox