Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Sherry Sun <sherry.sun@nxp.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
CC:     "jirislaby@kernel.org" <jirislaby@kernel.org>,
        "linux-serial@vger.kernel.org" <linux-serial@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@nxp.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] tty: serial: fsl_lpuart: fix the potential bug of
 division or modulo by zero
Thread-Topic: [PATCH 1/2] tty: serial: fsl_lpuart: fix the potential bug of
 division or modulo by zero
Thread-Index: AQHXOnDozEAqr+Jd7U+V+2HHvk8drarGcc0AgAAwVTCAAAkhgIAAAtswgAAK2ICAAAcqYA==
Date:   Mon, 26 Apr 2021 12:50:47 +0000
Message-ID: <AM0PR04MB4947C2088A8C4540AAB17E1392429@AM0PR04MB4947.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20210426074935.11131-1-sherry.sun@nxp.com>
 <20210426074935.11131-2-sherry.sun@nxp.com> <YIZ0/vRLASlUph6x@kroah.com>
 <AM0PR04MB4947A9253CE547BEBE95BE8092429@AM0PR04MB4947.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <YIalMRdbAKZpIJWP@kroah.com>
 <AM0PR04MB49470E50CFAB8C36EABB241192429@AM0PR04MB4947.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <YIawr8i62pHfSacm@kroah.com>
In-Reply-To: <YIawr8i62pHfSacm@kroah.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: cd110d06-df04-49b4-8a0e-08d908b1e9d3
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 26 Apr 2021 12:50:47.3844
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 686ea1d3-bc2b-4c6f-a92c-d99c5c301635
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 18kOVc9fWwJNejdQdXOJpx7uhIlwL7z8tPrgIem9IGg2HrIoagV3QrKYxxTFaycWLyA6RauXD7s+XYXBuIryKg==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM0PR0402MB3922
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Greg,

> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the reviewing, yes, I have tested the patchset on the
> > > > real
> > > hardware.
> > > >
> > > > Seems the coverity check is static scan, so cannot judge if
> > > > UARTBAUD
> > > Register will be zero.
> > > > I just found below statement in the uart reference manual: "When
> > > > SBR is 1
> > > - 8191, the baud rate equals "baud clock / ((OSR+1) =D7 SBR)"."
> > > > Since I am not familiar with uart, do you mean that the value of
> > > > UARTBAUD
> > > Register will never be zero, so this case will not happen in real wor=
d?
> > >
> > > Given that this never has happened with hardware for such an old
> > > device, perhaps it is impossible.  But it would be good to check.
> > >
> > > > If yes, I will drop this patch.
> > >
> > > Handling "bad data" from hardware is never a bad idea, so I don't
> > > necessarily want to drop this patch, I just want to try to figure
> > > out if this is a "incase the hardware is broken/malicious" type of ch=
ange,
> vs.
> > > a "this bug we are seeing in real hardware" type of change.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, you are right, the probability of hardware happen in this case is =
really
> low. But we cannot guarantee that it will never happen.
> > So will this check here be accepted? Thanks!
>=20
> Please resubmit it with a better changelog description summarizing the
> discussion here to make it more obvious why this change is needed.
>=20

Sure, will send a V2 patch with a better commit description. Thanks!

Best regards
Sherry

> thanks,
>=20
> greg k-h