linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] powerpc/papr_scm: Properly handle UUID types and API

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: <8e724a87-da78-9fc9-073e-cbbfea0ff97e@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Apr 2021 15:05:31 +0530
From:   "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Vaibhav Jain <vaibhav@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        "Oliver O'Halloran" <oohall@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] powerpc/papr_scm: Properly handle UUID types and
 API

On 4/16/21 2:39 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 01:28:21PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> On 4/15/21 7:16 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> Parse to and export from UUID own type, before dereferencing.
>>> This also fixes wrong comment (Little Endian UUID is something else)
>>> and should fix Sparse warnings about assigning strict types to POD.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 43001c52b603 ("powerpc/papr_scm: Use ibm,unit-guid as the iset cookie")
>>> Fixes: 259a948c4ba1 ("powerpc/pseries/scm: Use a specific endian format for storing uuid from the device tree")
>>> Cc: Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@...il.com>
>>> Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> Not tested
>>>    arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c | 13 ++++++++-----
>>>    1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c
>>> index ae6f5d80d5ce..4366e1902890 100644
>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c
>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c
>>> @@ -1085,8 +1085,9 @@ static int papr_scm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>    	u32 drc_index, metadata_size;
>>>    	u64 blocks, block_size;
>>>    	struct papr_scm_priv *p;
>>> +	u8 uuid_raw[UUID_SIZE];
>>>    	const char *uuid_str;
>>> -	u64 uuid[2];
>>> +	uuid_t uuid;
>>>    	int rc;
>>>    	/* check we have all the required DT properties */
>>> @@ -1129,16 +1130,18 @@ static int papr_scm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>    	p->hcall_flush_required = of_property_read_bool(dn, "ibm,hcall-flush-required");
>>>    	/* We just need to ensure that set cookies are unique across */
>>> -	uuid_parse(uuid_str, (uuid_t *) uuid);
>>> +	uuid_parse(uuid_str, &uuid);
>>> +
>>>    	/*
>>>    	 * cookie1 and cookie2 are not really little endian
>>> -	 * we store a little endian representation of the
>>> +	 * we store a raw buffer representation of the
>>>    	 * uuid str so that we can compare this with the label
>>>    	 * area cookie irrespective of the endian config with which
>>>    	 * the kernel is built.
>>>    	 */
>>> -	p->nd_set.cookie1 = cpu_to_le64(uuid[0]);
>>> -	p->nd_set.cookie2 = cpu_to_le64(uuid[1]);
>>> +	export_uuid(uuid_raw, &uuid);
>>> +	p->nd_set.cookie1 = get_unaligned_le64(&uuid_raw[0]);
>>> +	p->nd_set.cookie2 = get_unaligned_le64(&uuid_raw[8]);
>>
>> ok that does the equivalent of cpu_to_le64 there. So we are good. But the
>> comment update is missing the details why we did that get_unaligned_le64.
>> Maybe raw buffer representation is the correct term?
>> Should we add an example in the comment. ie,
> 
>> /*
>>   * Historically we stored the cookie in the below format.
>> for a uuid str 72511b67-0b3b-42fd-8d1d-5be3cae8bcaa
>> cookie1 was  0xfd423b0b671b5172 cookie2 was 0xaabce8cae35b1d8d
>> */
> 
> I'm fine with the comment. At least it will shed a light on the byte ordering
> we are expecting.
> 

Will you be sending an update? Also it will be good to list the sparse 
warning in the commit message?

-aneesh