linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] spi: sun6i: restrict transfer length in PIO-mode

Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Message-ID: <94a394bd-89bf-9334-c500-4cbadf4c1044@orpaltech.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 Apr 2018 13:26:23 +0300
From:   Sergey Suloev <ssuloev@...altech.com>
To:     Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>
Cc:     Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-spi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] spi: sun6i: restrict transfer length in PIO-mode

On 04/09/2018 12:27 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 06:48:23PM +0300, Sergey Suloev wrote:
>> On 04/06/2018 10:34 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 04:44:16PM +0300, Sergey Suloev wrote:
>>>> On 04/05/2018 04:17 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 12:59:35PM +0300, Sergey Suloev wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/05/2018 12:19 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>>>>>> The point of that patch was precisely to allow to send more data than
>>>>>>> the FIFO. You're breaking that behaviour without any justification,
>>>>>>> and this is not ok.
>>>>>> I am sorry, but you can't. That's a hardware limitation.
>>>>> Are you positive about that?  Normally you can add things to hardware
>>>>> FIFOs while they're being drained so so long as you can keep data
>>>>> flowing in at least as fast as it's being consumed.
>>>> Well, normally yes, but this is not the case with the hardware that I own.
>>>> My a20 (BPiM1+) and a31 (BPiM2) boards behaves differently. With a transfer
>>>> larger than FIFO then TC interrupt never happens.
>>> Because you're not supposed to have a transfer larger than the FIFO,
>>> but to have to setup at first a transfer the size of the FIFO, and
>>> then when it's (or starts to be) depleted, fill it up again.
>> According to what you said the driver must implement
>> "transfer_one_message" instead of "transfer_one"
> I'm not sure what makes you think that I said that.
>
> Maxime
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Because current implementation tries to send more than FIFO-depth of 
data in a single call to "transfer_one" which is wrong.

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