linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Initial support for Allwinner's Security ID fuses

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: <20130624214615.GA17604@kroah.com>
Date:	Mon, 24 Jun 2013 14:46:15 -0700
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Oliver Schinagl <oliver+list@...inagl.nl>
Cc:	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>, arnd@...db.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	andy.shevchenko@...il.com, linux@....linux.org.uk,
	linus.walleij@...aro.org, linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com,
	Oliver Schinagl <oliver@...inagl.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Initial support for Allwinner's Security ID fuses

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:21:16PM +0200, Oliver Schinagl wrote:
> On 06/24/13 20:15, Greg KH wrote:
> >On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 07:11:35PM +0200, Oliver Schinagl wrote:
> >>Hey Greg,
> >>On 06/24/13 18:04, Greg KH wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:29:42AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> >>>>Hi Greg,
> >>>>
> >>>>On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 03:58:47PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> >>>>>On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:59:37PM +0200, Oliver Schinagl wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>[..]
> >>>>
> >>>>>>+static int __init sunxi_sid_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>>>>>+{
> >>>>>>+	u8 entropy[SID_SIZE];
> >>>>>>+	unsigned int i;
> >>>>>>+	struct resource *res;
> >>>>>>+	void __iomem *sid_reg_base;
> >>>>>>+	int ret;
> >>>>>>+
> >>>>>>+	res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
> >>>>>>+	sid_reg_base = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res);
> >>>>>>+	if (IS_ERR(sid_reg_base))
> >>>>>>+		return PTR_ERR(sid_reg_base);
> >>>>>>+	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, sid_reg_base);
> >>>>>>+
> >>>>>>+	ret = device_create_bin_file(&pdev->dev, &sid_bin_attr);
> >>>>>>+	if (ret)
> >>>>>>+		return ret;
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You just raced with userspace, having the file show up after the device
> >>>>>was announced to users that it was there.  Please use the proper device
> >>>>>file api to add default attributes to prevent this from happening.
> >>>>
> >>>>Sorry if the question looks dumb, but what kind of race can we generate
> >>>>here?
> >>>
> >>>Userspace gets told about the device from the driver core, udev runs and
> >>>reads all of the attributes, then your probe function comes along and
> >>>adds a new attribute.  Userspace will then not know about it at all.
> >>>
> >>>>The device_create_bin_file is the last call that we make (if we except
> >>>>the entropy stuff, but it doesn't really matter here), so after we
> >>>>created the file, we have everything properly initialised so that our
> >>>>functions can be called, right?
> >>>>
> >>>>And another dumb question for you, what is the "proper device file API"
> >>>>you are referring to ? :)
> >>>
> >>>Please read Documentation/driver_model/device.txt and see the section on
> >>>Attributes for what to do.  If you have specific questions after reading
> >>>that, please let me know.
> >>Since Maxime kinda asked for me, I hope you don't mind me following up.
> >>
> >>That doc doesn't mention the binary interface at all. Initially I
> >>had both devices up, the 'read' device as a textual representation
> >>and added the binary one later. Maxime and I decided the binary one
> >>made more sense, as the only textual user would be a human and they
> >>don't poke that entry that often.
> >>
> >>So what default way exists for binary files or how would that be solved?
> >
> >The same interface should work just fine for binary files, have you
> >tried it?
> I'll just take the plunge and make myself look stupid ;)
> 
> I tried to change things around, used DEVICE_ATTR(eeprom, S_IRUGO,
> sid_read, NULL); So far so good I'd hope.

Ick, no.

> Of course now I'll have to change the function's parameters from
> 
> static ssize_t sid_read(struct file *fd, struct kobject *kobj,
> 			struct bin_attribute *attr, char *buf,
> 			loff_t pos, size_t size)
> 
> to
> 
> static ssize_t sid_read(struct device *dev,
> 			struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)

Which is what do you do not want, as you find out:

> But now, I'm missing things like 'pos' and 'size', both which
> determine the requested bytes. True, in this specific driver we are
> talking about 'only' 16 bytes, but what if it weren't but a few MiB
> and in sysfs we want to read some random byte, will we have to put
> the entire blok into the buffer?
> 
> So sorry for not understanding, but ... I don't understand :)

Stick with a binary attribute, and attach that to the proper class
structure and all should be fine.

Ah crap, you're using a platform device.

{sigh}

Why?  Why not use a "real" device which has a "real" class, and then use
the interfaces there?

greg k-h
--
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/