| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <AAB6D1CA92564062BD4DA23B485C6B55@realtek.com.tw>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:36:03 +0800
From: hayeswang <hayeswang@...ltek.com>
To: 'Francois Romieu' <romieu@...zoreil.com>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] net/r8169: Update the new parser for the new firmware
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francois Romieu [mailto:romieu@...zoreil.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 10:33 PM
> To: Hayeswang
> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/r8169: Update the new parser for the
> new firmware
>
> Hayes Wang <hayeswang@...ltek.com> :
> > Update the parser for the new firmware which is embedded
> some information.
> > The paser cannot be used for the old firmware. It is only
> for the new type one.
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hayes Wang <hayeswang@...ltek.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/net/r8169.c | 59
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
> > 1 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/r8169.c b/drivers/net/r8169.c index
> > ef1ce2e..87b684f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/r8169.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/r8169.c
> > @@ -36,11 +36,11 @@
> > #define MODULENAME "r8169"
> > #define PFX MODULENAME ": "
> >
> > -#define FIRMWARE_8168D_1 "rtl_nic/rtl8168d-1.fw"
> > -#define FIRMWARE_8168D_2 "rtl_nic/rtl8168d-2.fw"
> > -#define FIRMWARE_8168E_1 "rtl_nic/rtl8168e-1.fw"
> > -#define FIRMWARE_8168E_2 "rtl_nic/rtl8168e-2.fw"
> > -#define FIRMWARE_8105E_1 "rtl_nic/rtl8105e-1.fw"
> > +#define FIRMWARE_8168D_1 "rtl_nic/rtl8168d-3.fw"
> > +#define FIRMWARE_8168D_2 "rtl_nic/rtl8168d-4.fw"
> > +#define FIRMWARE_8168E_1 "rtl_nic/rtl8168e-3.fw"
> > +#define FIRMWARE_8168E_2 "rtl_nic/rtl8168e-4.fw"
> > +#define FIRMWARE_8105E_1 "rtl_nic/rtl8105e-2.fw"
>
> Why ?
I want to keep the old firmware used by the old paser. The old paser cannot use
the new firmware and the new paser cannot use the old firmware, so I separate
them.
>
> I see it more as a calling convention to communicate with
> userspace than as a place to funnel a partial version information.
>
> > #ifdef RTL8169_DEBUG
> > #define assert(expr) \
> > @@ -594,6 +594,13 @@ struct ring_info {
> > u8 __pad[sizeof(void *) - sizeof(u32)];
> > };
> >
> > +struct fw_info {
> > + char version[32];
> > + u32 fw_start;
> > + u32 fw_len;
> > + u8 chksum;
>
> The chksum field is never used.
This field in the binary file makes sure the checksum is zero. Driver don't need
to access this address. But it needs in the binary file for checking.
>
> [...]
> > @@ -1743,16 +1750,30 @@ static void rtl_writephy_batch(struct
> > rtl8169_private *tp, static void rtl_phy_write_fw(struct
> > rtl8169_private *tp, const struct firmware *fw) {
> > - __le32 *phytable = (__le32 *)fw->data;
> > + __le32 *phytable;
> > struct net_device *dev = tp->dev;
> > - size_t index, fw_size = fw->size / sizeof(*phytable);
> > + struct fw_info *f_info;
> > + size_t index, fw_size;
>
> s/index/i/
Yes, I would replace it.
>
> > u32 predata, count;
> > + u8 checksum;
> > +
> > + f_info = (struct fw_info *)fw->data;
>
> It will not work very well on big-endian computers. start and
> len should both use le32_to_cpu.
>
I would fix these. Thanks.
> >
> > - if (fw->size % sizeof(*phytable)) {
> > - netif_err(tp, probe, dev, "odd sized firmware
> %zd\n", fw->size);
> > + if (checksum != 0) {
> > + netif_err(tp, probe, dev, "none zero
> checksum(%u)\n", checksum);
> > return;
> > }
>
> Nit: "checksum" is not used beyond this point. It should be
> possible to put a few things in distinct functions to save
> some local variables.
>
I would separate this into another function.
> > + netif_info(tp, probe, dev, "firmware: %s\n", f_info->version);
> > +
> > + phytable = (__le32 *)(fw->data + f_info->fw_start);
> > + fw_size = f_info->fw_len;
> > +
> > for (index = 0; index < fw_size; index++) {
>
> It's a bit paranoid but I would feel safer if f_info->fw_len
> was compared to fw->size beforehand.
>
You are right. I would do it.
> [...]
> > @@ -1892,14 +1913,6 @@ static void
> rtl_apply_firmware(struct rtl8169_private *tp)
> > rtl_phy_write_fw(tp, fw);
> > }
> >
> > -static void rtl_apply_firmware_cond(struct rtl8169_private *tp, u8
> > reg, u16 val) -{
> > - if (rtl_readphy(tp, reg) != val)
> > - netif_warn(tp, hw, tp->dev, "chipset not ready
> for firmware\n");
> > - else
> > - rtl_apply_firmware(tp);
> > -}
> > -
> > static void rtl8169s_hw_phy_config(struct rtl8169_private *tp) {
> > static const struct phy_reg phy_reg_init[] = { @@
> -2334,10 +2347,7
> > @@ static void rtl8168d_1_hw_phy_config(struct rtl8169_private *tp)
> > rtl_w1w0_phy(tp, 0x02, 0x0100, 0x0600);
> > rtl_w1w0_phy(tp, 0x03, 0x0000, 0xe000);
> >
> > - rtl_writephy(tp, 0x1f, 0x0005);
> > - rtl_writephy(tp, 0x05, 0x001b);
> > -
> > - rtl_apply_firmware_cond(tp, MII_EXPANSION, 0xbf00);
> > + rtl_apply_firmware(tp);
> >
> > rtl_writephy(tp, 0x1f, 0x0000);
> > }
> > @@ -2437,10 +2447,7 @@ static void
> rtl8168d_2_hw_phy_config(struct rtl8169_private *tp)
> > rtl_writephy(tp, 0x1f, 0x0002);
> > rtl_patchphy(tp, 0x0f, 0x0017);
> >
> > - rtl_writephy(tp, 0x1f, 0x0005);
> > - rtl_writephy(tp, 0x05, 0x001b);
> > -
> > - rtl_apply_firmware_cond(tp, MII_EXPANSION, 0xb300);
> > + rtl_apply_firmware(tp);
>
> Actually both the format and the content of the firmware are
> changed by the patch.
>
> Imho the new firmware format could include some specific
> string so that the driver can identify the new firmware
> format and fallback to the old format otherwise. Any fixed
> magic prefix would be enough as the new format mandates the
> version information.
>
> This way Linus's test machine won't risk of breaking
> (again...) if he builds a new kernel without updating the
> firmware at the same time.
>
I plan to let the old paser loads the old firmware and the new paser loads the
new firmware. If you build the new kernel without updating the firmware, you
just load no firmware because the new firmware doesn't exist. However, it is
more dangerous for the old paser to load the new firmware. That is why I create
the new ones, not replace the existing files.
Best Regards,
Hayes
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists