| 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: <55F86E74.9010907@collabora.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 16:16:04 -0300
From: Emilio López <emilio.lopez@...labora.co.uk>
To: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@...hile0.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozłowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] platform/chrome: Support reading/writing the vboot
context
Hi Javier,
Thanks for the review. You'll find my answers inline
On 15/09/15 10:47, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Hello Emilio,
>
> Patch looks mostly good to me, I just have a few comments.
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Emilio López
> <emilio.lopez@...labora.co.uk> wrote:
>> Some EC implementations include a small nvram space used to store
>> verified boot context data. This patch offers a way to expose this
>> data to userspace.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Emilio López <emilio.lopez@...labora.co.uk>
>> ---
>> Changes from v1:
>> - Use is_bin_visible instead of is_visible
>>
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/cros-ec.txt | 4 +
>> drivers/platform/chrome/Makefile | 5 +-
>> drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_dev.c | 1 +
>> drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_vbc.c | 137 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>> include/linux/mfd/cros_ec.h | 1 +
>> 5 files changed, 147 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> create mode 100644 drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_vbc.c
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/cros-ec.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/cros-ec.txt
>> index 1777916..136e0c2 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/cros-ec.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/cros-ec.txt
>> @@ -34,6 +34,10 @@ Required properties (LPC):
>> - compatible: "google,cros-ec-lpc"
>> - reg: List of (IO address, size) pairs defining the interface uses
>>
>> +Optional properties (all):
>> +- google,has-vbc-nvram: Some implementations of the EC include a small
>> + nvram space used to store verified boot context data. This boolean flag
>> + is used to specify whether this nvram is present or not.
>>
>> Example for I2C:
>>
>
> I would split the DT binding part from the actual implementation, see
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt.
Ok, I'll do
>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/chrome/Makefile b/drivers/platform/chrome/Makefile
>> index 4a11b01..787be61 100644
>> --- a/drivers/platform/chrome/Makefile
>> +++ b/drivers/platform/chrome/Makefile
>> @@ -1,7 +1,10 @@
>>
>> obj-$(CONFIG_CHROMEOS_LAPTOP) += chromeos_laptop.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_CHROMEOS_PSTORE) += chromeos_pstore.o
>> -cros_ec_devs-objs := cros_ec_dev.o cros_ec_sysfs.o cros_ec_lightbar.o
>> +cros_ec_devs-objs := cros_ec_dev.o
>> +cros_ec_devs-objs += cros_ec_lightbar.o
>> +cros_ec_devs-objs += cros_ec_sysfs.o
>> +cros_ec_devs-objs += cros_ec_vbc.o
>
> Why are you changing the Makefile? AFAIK += is usually used when the
> compilation is conditional based on a Kconfig symbol but since these
> are build unconditionally, I'll just keep it as foo := bar baz
As far as I'm aware, += is append[0]. It's used for stuff like
obj-$(CONFIG_CHROMEOS_LAPTOP) += chromeos_laptop.o
because the left part will resolve to "obj-y" or similar, and you want
to add to it, not replace it. I only changed the Makefile here because
the line was growing too long, and I thought it looked neater this way;
it shouldn't cause any functional change apart from the intended one.
[0] https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Appending.html
> Which makes me think, do we need a Kconfig option for this feature
> since not all machines have it?
Not all machines have a lightbar either; both of the features are
runtime-conditional. IMO, it makes more sense this way when you consider
a kernel will likely support multiple platforms.
>> obj-$(CONFIG_CROS_EC_CHARDEV) += cros_ec_devs.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_CROS_EC_LPC) += cros_ec_lpc.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_CROS_EC_PROTO) += cros_ec_proto.o
>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_dev.c b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_dev.c
>> index e8fcdc2..d19263f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_dev.c
>> +++ b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_dev.c
>> @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ static int ec_major;
>> static const struct attribute_group *cros_ec_groups[] = {
>> &cros_ec_attr_group,
>> &cros_ec_lightbar_attr_group,
>> + &cros_ec_vbc_attr_group,
>> NULL,
>> };
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_vbc.c b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_vbc.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..a0e8d38
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_vbc.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,137 @@
>> +/*
>> + * cros_ec_vbc - Expose the vboot context nvram to userspace
>> + *
>> + * Copyright (C) 2015 Collabora Ltd.
>> + *
>> + * based on vendor driver,
>> + *
>> + * Copyright (C) 2012 The Chromium OS Authors
>> + *
>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
>> + * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
>> + * (at your option) any later version.
>> + *
>> + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>> + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>> + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
>> + * GNU General Public License for more details.
>> + */
>> +
>> +#include <linux/of.h>
>> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
>> +#include <linux/mfd/cros_ec.h>
>> +#include <linux/mfd/cros_ec_commands.h>
>> +#include <linux/slab.h>
>> +
>> +static ssize_t vboot_context_read(struct file *filp, struct kobject *kobj,
>> + struct bin_attribute *att, char *buf,
>> + loff_t pos, size_t count)
>> +{
>> + struct device *dev = container_of(kobj, struct device, kobj);
>> + struct cros_ec_dev *ec = container_of(dev, struct cros_ec_dev,
>> + class_dev);
>> + struct cros_ec_device *ecdev = ec->ec_dev;
>> + struct ec_params_vbnvcontext *params;
>> + struct cros_ec_command *msg;
>> + int err;
>> + const size_t para_sz = sizeof(struct ec_params_vbnvcontext);
>> + const size_t resp_sz = sizeof(struct ec_response_vbnvcontext);
>> + const size_t payload = max(para_sz, resp_sz);
>> +
>> + msg = kmalloc(sizeof(*msg) + payload, GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!msg)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + params = (struct ec_params_vbnvcontext *)msg->data;
>> + params->op = EC_VBNV_CONTEXT_OP_READ;
>> +
>> + msg->version = EC_VER_VBNV_CONTEXT;
>> + msg->command = EC_CMD_VBNV_CONTEXT;
>> + msg->outsize = sizeof(params->op);
>
> Shouldn't this be para_sz ? Since you are sending to the EC the whole
> struct ec_params_vbnvcontext and not only the op field.
>
> Or if the EC only expects to get the u32 op field, then I think your
> max payload calculation is not correct.
The params struct is the same for both read and write ops, so it has the
op flag and a buffer for the write op. During the read op I believe
there's no need to send this potentially-garbage-filled buffer to the
EC, so outsize is set accordingly here.
The vendor tree does it this way, but I can change it to send the full
buffer if you prefer so.
ec code is at
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/platform/ec/+/master/common/system.c
L1086+ if you want to take a look
>> + msg->insize = resp_sz;
>> +
>> + err = cros_ec_cmd_xfer(ecdev, msg);
>> + if (err < 0) {
>> + dev_err(dev, "Error sending read request: %d\n", err);
>> + kfree(msg);
>> + return err;
>> + }
>> +
>> + BUILD_BUG_ON(resp_sz > PAGE_SIZE);
>
> Why you need this? struct ec_response_vbnvcontext is really small AFAICT.
This is just me being paranoid about memcpy :) Indeed, the struct should
be way smaller than a page. I can drop it if you think it's too much.
>> + memcpy(buf, msg->data, resp_sz);
>> +
>> + kfree(msg);
>> + return resp_sz;
>> +}
>> +
Thanks!
Emilio
--
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