linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] net: dsa: rtl8366rb: standardize init jam tables

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHp75VeyKpeDa7XSjQ7zAEQ0BnseZCAJhh+nakNYN2nP+6PJAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Jan 2021 18:07:47 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Lorenzo Carletti <lorenzo.carletti98@...il.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, vivien.didelot@...il.com,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] net: dsa: rtl8366rb: standardize init jam tables

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 7:00 AM Lorenzo Carletti
<lorenzo.carletti98@...il.com> wrote:
>
> In the rtl8366rb driver there are some jam tables which contain
> undocumented values.
> While trying to understand what these tables actually do,
> I noticed a discrepancy in how one of those was treated.
> Most of them were plain u16 arrays, while the ethernet one was
> an u16 matrix.
> By looking at the vendor's droplets of source code these tables came from,
> I found out that they were all originally u16 matrixes.
>
> This commit standardizes the jam tables, turning them all into
> u16 matrixes.
> This change makes it easier to understand how the jam tables are used
> and also makes it possible for a single function to handle all of them,
> removing some duplicated code.

...

Since further replies removed code, I reply here for everybody with an
example of my thoughts against this cryptic data.

If you look into the below, for example, you may notice a few things.
 - it pokes different address regions (sounds like data section, text
section, etc.)
 - it has different meaning for some addresses (0xBE prefix)

+static const u16 rtl8366rb_init_jam_f5d8235[][2] = {
+       {0x0242, 0x02BF}, {0x0245, 0x02BF}, {0x0248, 0x02BF}, {0x024B, 0x02BF},
+       {0x024E, 0x02BF}, {0x0251, 0x02BF}, {0x0254, 0x0A3F}, {0x0256, 0x0A3F},
+       {0x0258, 0x0A3F}, {0x025A, 0x0A3F}, {0x025C, 0x0A3F}, {0x025E, 0x0A3F},

Sounds like we program some buffer lengths / limits (0x2c0, 0xa40 if
it rings any bell to anybody).

+       {0x0263, 0x007C}, {0x0100, 0x0004}, {0xBE5B, 0x3500}, {0x800E, 0x200F},

BE5B seems like "execute the routine at 0x3500 address".
Thus I think shuffling those pairs before 0xbe shouldn't give any
difference (but I have no hw to try).

+       {0xBE1D, 0x0F00}, {0x8001, 0x5011}, {0x800A, 0xA2F4}, {0x800B, 0x17A3},
+       {0xBE4B, 0x17A3}, {0xBE41, 0x5011}, {0xBE17, 0x2100}, {0x8000, 0x8304},
+       {0xBE40, 0x8304}, {0xBE4A, 0xA2F4}, {0x800C, 0xA8D5}, {0x8014, 0x5500},
+       {0x8015, 0x0004}, {0xBE4C, 0xA8D5}, {0xBE59, 0x0008}, {0xBE09, 0x0E00},
+       {0xBE36, 0x1036}, {0xBE37, 0x1036}, {0x800D, 0x00FF}, {0xBE4D, 0x00FF},

0x80 addresses are some kind of magic, like interrupt vector returns
or so. You may notice some 0xBE commands against the addresses that
are put into the 0x8000 address region.

 };

Overall it seems you have to discover a full firmware image to make
any assumptions about CPU ISA used there and address mapping.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko