linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] i2c: slave-eeprom: initialize empty eeprom properly

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, 22 Apr 2020 11:30:34 +0200
From:   Bjorn Ardo <bjorn.ardo@...s.com>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
CC:     Patrick Williams <patrick@...cx.xyz>,
        Björn Ardö <bjornar@...s.com>,
        <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] i2c: slave-eeprom: initialize empty eeprom properly

On 4/21/20 2:16 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>>> Yes, it might be easiest if he merges your patch (with attribution) into
>>> the else branch of his fw-load patch.
>>>
>> OK, so to summarize, I should update my patch to use
>> device_property_read_string() instead and also init the memory to 0XFF if no
>> file is present. And change name of the function to
> Or something else went wrong.

I did like this now: If device_property_read_string() returns a firmware 
name, I use that, otherwise init to 0xFF. But if it returns a firmware 
name, and for some reason I get an error when trying to load that 
firmware I will not default to 0xFF, but rather fail the probe. The 
logic in that is that if you actively supply a firmware name, you should 
not silently get 0xFF in your eeprom. Does that sound good?

>> i2c_slave_init_eeprom_data.
> Yes, that is my idea. You also need to replace checking for an of_node
> with some equivalent for device properties maybe, but that should be
> easy to find out.

It appears to me that those kind of checks are done inside 
device_property_read_string() so I can just remove them and only look at 
the return value of that function.

>> I will look into that and let you know once I'm done.
> Thank you!
>

I have a patch now working on 4.14, will run some tests on it and then 
try to forward-port to latest kernel och see if it works there as well.

/BA