linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 char-misc-next] misc: microchip: pci1xxxx: Add OTP/EEPROM driver for the pci1xxxx switch

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: <4124a575e7c7fe4f7d6393698970183c@walle.cc>
Date:   Wed, 15 Feb 2023 11:15:28 +0100
From:   Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
To:     Kumaravel.Thiagarajan@...rochip.com
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, Tharunkumar.Pasumarthi@...rochip.com,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, arnd@...db.de,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 char-misc-next] misc: microchip: pci1xxxx: Add
 OTP/EEPROM driver for the pci1xxxx switch

>> > > > > > Microchip's pci1xxxx is an unmanaged PCIe3.1a switch for
>> > > > > > consumer, industrial, and automotive applications. This
>> > > > > > switch integrates OTP and EEPROM to enable customization of
>> > > > > > the part in the field. This patch provides the OTP/EEPROM
>> > > > > > driver to support the
>> > same.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Why isn't this driver using the nvmem subsystem which is
>> > > > > usually used for OTP and EEPROM?
>> > > > Michael, these OTP and EEPROM memories do not have any fixed
>> > > > location registers which store values (Eg. mac address, config
>> > > > parameters, etc) at fixed offsets.
>> > > > It stores a bunch of records, each of which has some data to be
>> > > > written into the device's hardware registers at different locations.
>> > > > These records are directly consumed by the hardware and
>> > > > interpreted without the involvement of the software.
>> > > > Therefore, we don't require any OTP / EEPROM register map to be
>> > > > input to the OS / driver through device tree or board files.
>> > > > I only had to enumerate two separate block devices using the
>> > > > driver so that the config binary files can be overlayed using
>> > > > the dd command.
>> > > > Since this is not fitting like a conventional nvme device, I
>> > > > didn't choose the nvme subsystem.
>> > > > Please let me know your thoughts / comments if any.
>> > >
>> > > So this is only for provisioning. i.e. during manufacturing a
>> > > board which uses this PCI bridge? There are no kernel users, nor
>> > > is there a common interface towards user-space. But just some
>> > > block device (why not a char device?) exposed to userspace. I
>> > > presume there is a companion userspace application for it? Why do
>> > > you take the extra step and have a (random) kernel interface, you
>> > > could also just access the PCI device directly from userspace
>> > > within your companion application, e.g. through libpci.
>> >
>> > Yeah, why not just use userspace, I missed that, thanks!
>> Greg & Michael, I do not want to expose the entire or even partial set
>> of device registers to the user space access directly for safety 
>> reasons.

I presume that utility will need root anyway. IOW, it doesn't make
sense to be used as a normal user.

>> I think hardware registers shall be accessible only through safe and
>> robust kernel mode components and that the user space shall only be
>> able to access the device through the kernel mode services.
>> I want the user to use the hardware only in those ways designated by
>> the driver.

I don't get that point. It is not something you are doing regularly
or maybe even in a running system. I guess you'll have to do a reboot
anyway after you modified some registers defaults. Anyway, it's still
only for provisioning.

>> We were using the "busybox devmem" to access the hardware registers
>> directly and to program the EEPROM / OTP.
>> But we understood that it cannot be an end user solution in all cases
>> and based on some of the operating environments, there can be some
>> restrictions in opening the direct hardware access to the user space.

Yes, then just build a tool around libpci as I've mentioned. Who is the
user here? An OEM? An end-user? What would an end-user update within
your PCI bridge?

As a matter of fact, it actually makes it harder for a user because
he will also need this kernel driver (which might be disabled for
whatever reason).

>> Please let me know your thoughts / comments if any.
> 
> I missed one more important point. This driver is targeted not just
> for the manufacturing environment.
> we want to be able to update the OTP / EEPROM when the device is in
> the field also.

What would be an example of that?

-michael