linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 3/5] HID: ft260: support i2c writes larger than HID report size

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHSN6Ocr538DZCkP9-RL7V7ALc6G_e4rWQz56qRg4o-GVd7=hg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 25 May 2022 16:33:09 -0400
From:   Guillaume Champagne <champagne.guillaume.c@...il.com>
To:     Michael Zaidman <michael.zaidman@...il.com>
Cc:     jikos@...nel.org, benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com, wsa@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        Mathieu Gallichand <mathieu.gallichand@...atest.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/5] HID: ft260: support i2c writes larger than HID
 report size

Le mer. 25 mai 2022 à 15:42, Michael Zaidman
<michael.zaidman@...il.com> a écrit :
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 11:44:09AM -0400, Guillaume Champagne wrote:
> > Le mer. 25 mai 2022 à 03:48, Michael Zaidman
> > <michael.zaidman@...il.com> a écrit :
> > >
> > > To support longer than one HID report size write, the driver splits a single
> > > i2c message data payload into multiple i2c messages of HID report size.
> > > However, it does not replicate the offset bytes within the EEPROM chip in
> > > every consequent HID report because it is not and should not be aware of
> > > the EEPROM type. It breaks the i2c write message integrity and causes the
> > > EEPROM device not to acknowledge the second HID report keeping the i2c bus
> > > busy until the ft260 controller reports failure.
> > >
> >
> > I tested this whole patchset and it resolves the issue I raised
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-input/patch/20220524192422.13967-1-champagne.guillaume.c@gmail.com/,
> > thanks.
>
> Much appreciated!
> I will add your tested-by in the second version of the patchset.
>
> >
> > > This patch preserves the i2c write message integrity by manipulating the
> > > i2c flag bits across multiple HID reports to be seen by the EEPROM device
> > > as a single i2c write transfer.
> > >
> > > Before:
> > >
> > > $ sudo ./i2cperf -f 2 -o 2 -s 64 -r 0-0xff 13 0x51 -S
> > > Error: Sending messages failed: Input/output error
> > >
> > > [  +3.667741] ft260_i2c_write: rep 0xde addr 0x51 off 0 len 60 d[0] 0x0
> > > [  +0.007330] ft260_hid_output_report_check_status: wait 6400 usec, len 64
> > > [  +0.000203] ft260_xfer_status: bus_status 0x40, clock 100
> > > [  +0.000001] ft260_i2c_write: rep 0xd1 addr 0x51 off 60 len 6 d[0] 0x0
> > > [  +0.002337] ft260_hid_output_report_check_status: wait 1000 usec, len 10
> > > [  +0.000157] ft260_xfer_status: bus_status 0x2e, clock 100
> > > [  +0.000241] ft260_i2c_reset: done
> > > [  +0.000003] ft260 0003:0403:6030.000E: ft260_i2c_write: failed to start transfer, ret -5
> > >
> > > After:
> > >
> > > $ sudo ./i2cperf -f 2 -o 2 -s 128 -r 0-0xff 13 0x51 -S
> > >
> > >   Fill block with increment via i2ctransfer by chunks
> > >   -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >   data rate(bps)  efficiency(%)  data size(B)  total IOs   IO size(B)
> > >   -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >   58986           86             256           2           128
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Michael Zaidman <michael.zaidman@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/hid/hid-ft260.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> > >  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-ft260.c b/drivers/hid/hid-ft260.c
> > > index 44106cadd746..bfda5b191a3a 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/hid/hid-ft260.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-ft260.c
> > > @@ -378,41 +378,50 @@ static int ft260_hid_output_report_check_status(struct ft260_device *dev,
> > >  }
> > >
> > >  static int ft260_i2c_write(struct ft260_device *dev, u8 addr, u8 *data,
> > > -                          int data_len, u8 flag)
> > > +                          int len, u8 flag)
> > >  {
> > > -       int len, ret, idx = 0;
> > > +       int ret, wr_len, idx = 0;
> > > +       bool first = true;
> > >         struct hid_device *hdev = dev->hdev;
> > >         struct ft260_i2c_write_request_report *rep =
> > >                 (struct ft260_i2c_write_request_report *)dev->write_buf;
> > >
> > >         do {
> > > -               if (data_len <= FT260_WR_DATA_MAX)
> > > -                       len = data_len;
> > > -               else
> > > -                       len = FT260_WR_DATA_MAX;
> > > +               rep->flag = 0;
> > > +               if (first) {
> > > +                       rep->flag = FT260_FLAG_START;
> >
> > I feel like multi packet transactions must still honor flag sent to
> > ft20_i2c_write. This adds a START even if ft260_i2c_write is called
> > with FT260_FLAG_START_REPEATED or FT260_FLAG_NONE.
>
> We use the FT260_FLAG_START_REPEATED to precede the Read message following
> the Write message in the i2c combined transaction. Am I missing any i2c
> protocol case using the Repeated Start in the Write path?
>

None that I know of. My point was that software wise it may be less
surprising to the programmer if "flag" is replicated as is when
calling ft260_i2c_write. For example, calling it with FT260_FLAG_STOP
only sends a START, no STOP. I agree that it isn't currently called
that way and that it may never be.

> The FT260_FLAG_NONE should not be passed into the ft20_i2c_write as well.
>
> So, we can keep it simple.

Agreed.

>