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, 10 Apr 2019 19:54:59 +0200
From:   Martin Blumenstingl <>
To:     Liang Yang <>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <>,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: 32-bit Amlogic (ARM) SoC: kernel BUG in kfree()

Hi Liang,

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 1:08 PM Liang Yang <> wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> On 2019/4/5 12:30, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> > Hi Liang,
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 8:44 AM Liang Yang <> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Martin,
> >>
> >> On 2019/3/29 2:03, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> >>> Hi Liang,
> >> [......]
> >>>> I don't think it is caused by a different NAND type, but i have followed
> >>>> the some test on my GXL platform. we can see the result from the
> >>>> attachment. By the way, i don't find any information about this on meson
> >>>> NFC datasheet, so i will ask our VLSI.
> >>>> Martin, May you reproduce it with the new patch on meson8b platform ? I
> >>>> need a more clear and easier compared log like gxl.txt. Thanks.
> >>> your gxl.txt is great, finally I can also compare my own results with
> >>> something that works for you!
> >>> in my results (see attachment) the "DATA_IN  [256 B, force 8-bit]"
> >>> instructions result in a different info buffer output.
> >>> does this make any sense to you?
> >>>
> >> I have asked our VLSI designer for explanation or simulation result by
> >> an e-mail. Thanks.
> > do you have any update on this?
> Sorry. I haven't got reply from VLSI designer yet. We tried to improve
> priority yesterday, but i still can't estimate the time. There is no
> document or change list showing the difference between m8/b and gxl/axg
> serial chips. Now it seems that we can't use command NFC_CMD_N2M on nand
> initialization for m8/b chips and use *read byte from NFC fifo register*
> instead.
thank you for the status update!

I am trying to understand your suggestion not to use NFC_CMD_N2M:
the documentation (public S922X datasheet from Hardkernel: [0]) states
that P_NAND_BUF (NFC_REG_BUF in the meson_nand driver) can hold up to
four bytes of data. is this the "read byte from NFC FIFO register" you

Before I spend time changing the code to use the FIFO register I would
like to wait for an answer from your VLSI designer.
Setting the "correct" info buffer length for NFC_CMD_N2M on the 32-bit
SoCs seems like an easier solution compared to switching to the FIFO
register. Keeping NFC_CMD_N2M on the 32-bit SoCs also allows us to
have only one code-path for 32 and 64 bit SoCs, meaning we don't have
to maintain two separate code-paths for basically the same
functionality (assuming that NFC_CMD_N2M is not completely broken on
the 32-bit SoCs, we just don't know how to use it yet).



Powered by blists - more mailing lists