linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2.6.28-rc9] spi: spi_write_then

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200812211648.26699.david-b@pacbell.net>
Date:	Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:48:26 -0800
From:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	spi-devel-general@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Vernon Sauder <vernoninhand@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.28-rc9] spi: spi_write_then_read() regression fix

On Sunday 21 December 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, David Brownell wrote:
> > 
> > All SPI transfers are full duplex, and are packaged as half duplex
> > by either discarding the data that's read ("write only"), or else
> > by writing zeroes ("read only").  That patch wasn't ensuring that
> > zeroes were getting written out during the "half duplex read" part
> > of the transaction; instead, old RX bits were getting sent.
> 
> Hmm. In addition, isn't this broken (in that same function):

No -- this is full duplex.  The write_then_read() helper is
simplifying a common half-duplex idiom for short operations,
but the harware still does full duplex.  Buffer layout is:

  Before:	WWWWW0000000
  After:	xxxxxRRRRRRR

That is, for every bit shifted out (W, 0) another one gets
shifted in (x, R).  The I/O primitive essentially swaps
contents of a one-word shift register between master and
slave; or, sequences of such words.  Words don't need to
be byte-size, though that's a common option.

 
>         memcpy(local_buf, txbuf, n_tx);
>         x.tx_buf = local_buf;
>         x.rx_buf = local_buf;
> 
>         /* do the i/o */
>         status = spi_sync(spi, &message);
>         if (status == 0)
>                 memcpy(rxbuf, x.rx_buf + n_tx, n_rx);
> 
> shouldn't that 'rx_buf' setup be
> 
> 	x.rx_buf = local_buf + n_tx;
> 
> since the whole point was that we allocated a buffer that can hold _both_ 
> the rx and tx parts? Especially as that final copy into the resulting 
> "rxbuf" thing uses that "+ n_tx" addition?

See above.  We only want the "R" bits which were shifted in
right *after* the n_tx "W" bits.  If we offset rx_buf before
the I/O, we'd start with the "x" don't-care bits and need to
do something else to discard them.  (Plus, allocate more
space at the end of the buffer.)

- Dave


> 			Linus
> 
> 


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/