linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mfd: cros ec: spi: Fix "in progress" error signaling

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]

Date:   Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:50:15 +0000
From:   Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
CC:     Shawn N <shawnn@...omium.org>,
        Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: cros ec: spi: Fix "in progress" error signaling

Hi Lee,

On 14/11/17 17:00, Shawn N wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 02:35:27PM -0700, Shawn Nematbakhsh wrote:
>>> For host commands that take a long time to process, cros ec can return
>>> early by signaling a EC_RES_IN_PROGRESS result. The host must then poll
>>> status with EC_CMD_GET_COMMS_STATUS until completion of the command.
>>>
>>> None of the above applies when data link errors are encountered. When
>>> errors such as EC_SPI_PAST_END are encountered during command
>>> transmission, it usually means the command was not received by the EC.
>>> Treating such errors as if they were 'EC_RES_IN_PROGRESS' results is
>>> almost always the wrong decision, and can result in host commands
>>> silently being lost.
>>>
>>> Reported-and-tested-by: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Shawn Nematbakhsh <shawnn@...omium.org>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/mfd/cros_ec_spi.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
>>>  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>>
>> I'm still not sure I understand the full extent of the
>> originally-reported error (it's still likely a SPI transport issue?),
>> but I believe this patch is good anyway:
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
> 
> Jon tracked down the root cause of the originally-reported error, but
> we should still land this patch, as it fixes error signaling that was
> previously broken.

Can you also queue this one as a fix for v4.15?

Cheers
Jon

-- 
nvpublic