linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: Fix Cadence QSPI page fault kernel panic

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: <cfadfbab-70bd-cb1c-c9a6-446cefd87e9e@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Mar 2018 23:33:12 +0100
From:   Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>
To:     thor.thayer@...ux.intel.com, cyrille.pitchen@...ev4u.fr,
        dwmw2@...radead.org, computersforpeace@...il.com,
        boris.brezillon@...tlin.com, richard@....at
Cc:     linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: Fix Cadence QSPI page fault kernel panic

On 03/19/2018 07:45 PM, thor.thayer@...ux.intel.com wrote:
> From: Thor Thayer <thor.thayer@...ux.intel.com>
> 
> The current Cadence QSPI driver caused a kernel panic when loading
> a Root Filesystem from QSPI. The problem was caused by reading more
> bytes than needed because the QSPI operated on 4 bytes at a time.
> <snip>
> [    7.947754] spi_nor_read[1048]:from 0x037cad74, len 1 [bfe07fff]
> [    7.956247] cqspi_read[910]:offset 0x58502516, buffer=bfe07fff
> [    7.956247]
> [    7.966046] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual
> address bfe08002
> [    7.973239] pgd = eebfc000
> [    7.975931] [bfe08002] *pgd=2fffb811, *pte=00000000, *ppte=00000000
> </snip>
> Notice above how only 1 byte needed to be read but by reading 4 bytes
> into the end of a mapped page, a unrecoverable page fault occurred.
> 
> This patch uses a temporary buffer to hold the 4 bytes read and then
> copies only the bytes required into the buffer. A min() function is
> used to limit the length to prevent buffer overflows.
> 
> Similar changes were made for the write routine.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thor Thayer <thor.thayer@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/cadence-quadspi.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/cadence-quadspi.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/cadence-quadspi.c
> index 4b8e9183489a..b22ed982f896 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/cadence-quadspi.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/cadence-quadspi.c
> @@ -501,7 +501,8 @@ static int cqspi_indirect_read_execute(struct spi_nor *nor, u8 *rxbuf,
>  	void __iomem *reg_base = cqspi->iobase;
>  	void __iomem *ahb_base = cqspi->ahb_base;
>  	unsigned int remaining = n_rx;
> -	unsigned int bytes_to_read = 0;
> +	unsigned int mod_bytes, words_to_read, bytes_to_read = 0;
> +	u8 *rxbuf_end = rxbuf + n_rx;
>  	int ret = 0;
>  
>  	writel(from_addr, reg_base + CQSPI_REG_INDIRECTRDSTARTADDR);
> @@ -533,9 +534,21 @@ static int cqspi_indirect_read_execute(struct spi_nor *nor, u8 *rxbuf,
>  			bytes_to_read *= cqspi->fifo_width;
>  			bytes_to_read = bytes_to_read > remaining ?
>  					remaining : bytes_to_read;
> -			ioread32_rep(ahb_base, rxbuf,
> -				     DIV_ROUND_UP(bytes_to_read, 4));
> -			rxbuf += bytes_to_read;
> +			/* Read 4 byte chunks before using single byte mode */
> +			words_to_read = bytes_to_read / 4;
> +			mod_bytes = bytes_to_read % 4;
> +			if (words_to_read) {
> +				ioread32_rep(ahb_base, rxbuf, words_to_read);
> +				rxbuf += (words_to_read * 4);
> +			}
> +			if (mod_bytes) {
> +				unsigned int temp = ioread32(ahb_base);
> +
> +				memcpy(rxbuf, &temp, min((unsigned int)
> +							 (rxbuf_end - rxbuf),
> +							 mod_bytes));
> +				rxbuf += mod_bytes;
> +			}

Wouldn't it make more sense to read in 4 byte increments all the time
except for the one last read instead ? This code above where you always
check for trailing bytes can make the next read cycle do ioreaad32 into
unaligned memory address and thus cause slowdown. (consider the example
where the controller first reports it has 5 bytes ready, then reports it
has 7 bytes ready. If you read 4 bytes in the first cycle, wait a bit
and then check how much data the controller has in the next cycle, it
will be 8 bytes, all nicely aligned).

Does it make sense ?

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut