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:   Fri, 1 Dec 2017 11:04:29 +0100
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To:     Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Sven Van Asbroeck <svendev@...x.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        divagar.mohandass@...el.com
Subject: Re: BUG: support for at24 multi-slave-address eeproms is broken.

2017-11-30 23:34 GMT+01:00 Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>:
> Hi Sven,
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 02:03:23PM -0500, Sven Van Asbroeck wrote:
>> Summary
>> -------
>> Some at24 eeproms have multiple i2c slave addresses. A patch introduced
>> between 4.14-rc5 and 4.14-rc6 breaks support for these eeproms:
>> reads/writes which start outside the first slave no longer work.
>>
>> 98e8201039afad5d2af87df9ac682f62f69c0c2f
>> (eeprom: at24: enable runtime pm support)
>>
>> How to reproduce
>> ----------------
>> - I'm using the latest mainline at24 driver (4.15-rc1)
>> - I have a 24AA16/24LC16B on board, which is a 2048-byte eeprom,
>>       made up of 8x 256-byte internal eeproms, all with their own i2c slave
>>       address. Base i2c address is 0x50, so this results in the following
>>       slave addresses: 0x50, 0x51, 0x52, 0x53, 0x54, 0x55, 0x56, 0x57 of
>>       256 bytes each.
>
> Thank you for reporting this.
>
>>
>> $ ls -l /sys/bus/i2c/devices/1-0050/eeprom
>> -rw-------    1 root     root          2048 Nov 30 13:16 /sys/bus/i2c/devices/1-0050/eeprom
>>
>> Reading from the beginning to the end in one go works just fine:
>> $ hexdump -C /sys/bus/i2c/devices/1-0050/eeprom
>> 00000000  f8 6e cf 01 ff 01 00 00  03 00 58 41 18 00 00 00  |.n........XA....|
>> 00000010  53 61 74 20 4d 61 72 20  31 32 20 31 32 3a 35 35  |Sat Mar 12 12:55|
>> 00000020  3a 31 32 20 32 30 31 36  01 00 58 41 0f 00 00 00  |:12 2016..XA....|
>> 00000030  41 58 4d 2d 55 50 33 32  39 32 2d 30 38 32 34 00  |AXM-UP3292-0824.|
>> 00000040  02 00 58 41 0d 00 00 00  41 58 53 2d 55 50 33 4b  |..XA....AXS-UP3K|
>> 00000050  2d 30 32 30 34 00 00 00  04 00 58 41 09 00 00 00  |-0204.....XA....|
>> 00000060  55 4e 54 31 34 30 30 42  34 00 00 00 0a 00 58 41  |UNT1400B4.....XA|
>> 00000070  01 00 00 00 32 00 00 00  09 00 58 41 01 00 00 00  |....2.....XA....|
>> 00000080  31 00 00 00 01 00 00 00  32 00 00 00 01 00 00 00  |1.......2.......|
>> 00000090  32 00 00 00 ff ff ff ff  ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff  |2...............|
>> 000000a0  ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff  ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff  |................|
>> *
>> 00000800
>>
>> Reading from somewhere in the middle (outside of first slave) gives
>> EACCESS:
>> $ dd if=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/1-0050/eeprom bs=1 skip=520 count=20
>> dd: /sys/bus/i2c/devices/1-0050/eeprom: Permission denied
>>
>> Reading from somewhere in the middle (INSIDE of first slave) still works:
>> $ dd if=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/1-0050/eeprom bs=1 skip=20 count=20 | hexdump -C
>> 00000000  4d 61 72 20 31 32 20 31  32 3a 35 35 3a 31 32 20  |Mar 12 12:55:12 |
>> 00000010  32 30 31 36                                       |2016|
>> 00000014
>>
>> Additional questions for the patch authors
>> ------------------------------------------
>> 1. why is there a need to add pm_runtime support to a series of chips
>> (at24) which do not have any power management registers, hardware or
>> support ?
>
> Power management is not a property of the chip itself, it's external to it.
>
> The motivation for the patch was that the chip is powered together with
> other chips in a camera module. If it is not powered off, all other devices
> in the module will remain powered. This is undesirable.
>
>>
>> 2. why is the at24's pm_runtime support operating on its parent i2c bus?
>> Why can't the parent i2c bus driver be in charge of its own runtime pm?
>
> This is device specific, the I²C bus driver doesn't know about it.
>
> I have a patch that should address the problem, let me know if it works for
> you.
>
> --
> Kind regards,
>
> Sakari Ailus
> sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com

Thanks for taking care of it!

@Sven: it would be great if you could test it and add your Tested-by
to the patch. I'll then queue it for 4.15.

Thanks,
Bartosz

Powered by blists - more mailing lists