linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] eeprom: at24: Add support for large EEPROMs connected to SMBus adapters

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: <5512C213.7030705@roeck-us.net>
Date:	Wed, 25 Mar 2015 07:11:31 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
CC:	linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] eeprom: at24: Add support for large EEPROMs connected
 to SMBus adapters

On 03/19/2015 02:39 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
>> Turns out this is really easy to reproduce. One process reads
>> the eeprom over and over again, another runs i2cdump in a loop,
>> and voila ... lots of corruptions. Scary, especially considering
>> how wide-spread this kind of i2c access is in the kernel.
>
> A coccinelle script should at least be able to find vulnerable code
> paths, maybe even fix it. But not today for me... Thanks for testing and
> sharing the results!
>

Wolfram,

just to give you an update: I do have some code, but it is a bit messy,
and it doesn't work well for ds2482 (the chip behind it still hangs up
if I access it in parallel through i2c-dev). On top of that, it causes
pretty significant slow-downs when accessing other devices on the same
bus at the same time. Not surprising, I guess, since it expands the scope
of the bus lock significantly.

I thought about introducing a client lock, but that does not work because
of the way i2c-dev is written (creating its own 'shadow' client structure).
An address lock (ie a client lock based on <bus, address> instead of one
residing in the client structure) seems to be too expensive.

So right now I don't really know how to proceed, or if to proceed at all.
I'll think about it some more, but given how wide-spread the problem is
in the kernel, I might just leave it alone, and keep the at24 changes
out of tree.

Ultimately, the real problem is how i2c-dev accesses a client, not how
i2c client drivers (who assume they have exclusive access to a chip)
handle multi-command sequences. Forcing extensive locking on all drivers
because of i2c-dev just doesn't seem to be the right thing to do.

Guenter

--
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/