linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] platform/chrome: cros_ec_proto: Convert EC error codes to Linux error codes

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: <20200722215220.GA2137556@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Jul 2020 14:52:20 -0700
From:   Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>,
        Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Yu-Hsuan Hsu <yuhsuan@...omium.org>,
        Prashant Malani <pmalani@...omium.org>,
        Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@...omium.org>,
        Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@...omium.org>,
        Aseda Aboagye <aaboagye@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] platform/chrome: cros_ec_proto: Convert EC error
 codes to Linux error codes

+ drinkcat, aseda

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 07:23:20AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 01:29:01PM +0200, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote:
> > On 20/7/20 22:22, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > +	[EC_RES_INVALID_HEADER_VERSION] = -EBADMSG,
> 
> Any idea for EC_RES_INVALID_HEADER_VERSION ? I am not entirely happy
> with -EBADMSG: the error is distinctly different to CRC errors.
> EPROTONOSUPPORT as well, maybe, or something else ?

FWIW, these (INVALID_HEADER_VERSION, INVALID_HEADER_CRC,
INVALID_DATA_CRC) aren't actually used on any firmware yet. This has
been open forever:
https://crbug.com/787159
Added here:
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromiumos/platform/ec/+/780452/

Unfortunately, the linked design doc (still in draft) is not public.

My understanding is that while they're not all exactly the same (CRC is
different than the others), they are all still supposed to represent
"corrupt request [from the Application Processor]". EBADMSG seems good
enough to me.

Brian

P.S. for those added late -- you can grab the whole thread from here:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200720202243.180230-1-linux@roeck-us.net/
or in mbox form:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200720202243.180230-1-linux@roeck-us.net/t.mbox.gz