On 01/12/23 10:28:52, Linus Walleij wrote:
> Hi Jorge,
>
> thanks for your patch!
>
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 10:10 AM Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > When RPMB was converted to a character device, it added support for
> > multiple RPMB partitions (Commit 97548575bef3 ("mmc: block: Convert RPMB
> > to a character device").
> >
> > One of the changes in this commit was transforming the variable
> > target_part defined in __mmc_blk_ioctl_cmd into a bitmask.
> >
> > This inadvertedly regressed the validation check done in
> > mmc_blk_part_switch_pre() and mmc_blk_part_switch_post().
> >
> > This commit fixes that regression.
> >
> > Fixes: 97548575bef3 ("mmc: block: Convert RPMB to a character device")
> > Signed-off-by: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> My bug :/
> Shouldn't we also add Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?
ack, will do.
>
>
> > + const unsigned int mask = EXT_CSD_PART_CONFIG_ACC_RPMB;
> > int ret = 0;
> >
> > - if (part_type == EXT_CSD_PART_CONFIG_ACC_RPMB) {
> > + if (part_type & mask == mask) {
>
> That looks complex, can't we just:
>
> if (part_type & EXT_CSD_PART_CONFIG_ACC_RPMB)?
I chose to mention the mask nature of the field for clarity - just in
case - but I'd much rather do your suggestion. So will do :)
>
> > + const unsigned int mask = EXT_CSD_PART_CONFIG_ACC_RPMB;
> > int ret = 0;
> >
> > - if (part_type == EXT_CSD_PART_CONFIG_ACC_RPMB) {
> > + if (part_type & mask == mask) {
>
> Dito here.
yep
>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
thanks !
