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]

Date:   Wed, 22 Jul 2020 15:01:53 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
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

On 7/22/20 2:52 PM, Brian Norris wrote:
> + 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.
> 

SGTM, and make sense.

Thanks,
Guenter

> 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
>