linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Module argument to control whether intel-spi-pci attempts to turn the SPI flash chip writeable

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: <CAFmMkTFiqDtTw2v8RJktzY--WxGd7Fdz2fKA3YxXzA8ZiDS1XQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Jul 2020 11:18:20 -0300
From:   Daniel Gutson <daniel@...ypsium.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com>,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@...nel.org>,
        linux-mtd <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alex Bazhaniuk <alex@...ypsium.com>,
        Richard Hughes <hughsient@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Module argument to control whether intel-spi-pci attempts
 to turn the SPI flash chip writeable

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:09 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 2:21 PM Daniel Gutson <daniel@...ypsium.com> wrote:
> > El jue., 30 jul. 2020 2:31 a. m., Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> escribió:
> >>
> >> Again, module parameters are working on a per-chunk-of-code basis, while
> >> you want to work on a per-device basis,
> >
> >
> > I think there is a misunderstanding.  What I want is to control (turn on or off) is a very specific code snippet that provides the "functionality" of trying to turn the chip writable. The rest of the device driver is fine.
> > I assume that the one that doesn't understand is me.
> >
>
> I looked at the source code again and found that the existing module
> parameter applies to both the platform and pci device front-ends, both
> of which go through
>
>         /* Prevent writes if not explicitly enabled */
>         if (!ispi->writeable || !writeable)
>                 ispi->nor.mtd.flags &= ~MTD_WRITEABLE;
>

I think you missed
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/controllers/intel-spi-pci.c#L44

    /* Try to make the chip read/write */
    pci_read_config_dword(pdev, BCR, &bcr);
    if (!(bcr & BCR_WPD)) {
        bcr |= BCR_WPD;
        pci_write_config_dword(pdev, BCR, bcr);
        pci_read_config_dword(pdev, BCR, &bcr);
    }

in the probe function, and is executed always and unconditionally.

/* Try to make the chip read/write */
pci_read_config_dword(pdev, BCR, &bcr);
if (!(bcr & BCR_WPD)) {
bcr |= BCR_WPD;
pci_write_config_dword(pdev, BCR, bcr);
pci_read_config_dword(pdev, BCR, &bcr);
}

> Setting the PCI device writable in hardware makes it possible to
> actually write to it *only* if the module parameter is also set to '1'.
> One might disagree with that design, but I don't think your patch
> would make it any better, it just means one would have to set
> two module parameters instead of one.
>
>      Arnd



-- 
Daniel Gutson
Argentina Site Director
Enginieering Director
Eclypsium

Below The Surface: Get the latest threat research and insights on
firmware and supply chain threats from the research team at Eclypsium.
https://eclypsium.com/research/#threatreport