linux-kernel - Re: 32-bit Amlogic (ARM) SoC: kernel BUG in kfree()

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, 10 Apr 2019 19:54:59 +0200
From:   Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
To:     Liang Yang <liang.yang@...ogic.com>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, mhocko@...e.com,
        linux@...linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        rppt@...ux.ibm.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: 32-bit Amlogic (ARM) SoC: kernel BUG in kfree()

Hi Liang,

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 1:08 PM Liang Yang <liang.yang@...ogic.com> 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 <liang.yang@...ogic.com> 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
mentioned?

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).


Regards
Martin


[0] https://dn.odroid.com/S922X/ODROID-N2/Datasheet/S922X_Public_Datasheet_V0.2.pdf