| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20231219085517.4b6ec4fc@xps-13>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 08:55:17 +0100
From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To: Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>
Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>, Rob Herring
<robh+dt@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Michael Walle
<michael@...le.cc>, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, u-boot@...ts.denx.de, Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] nvmem: layouts: add U-Boot env layout
Hi Rafał,
zajec5@...il.com wrote on Mon, 18 Dec 2023 23:10:20 +0100:
> On 18.12.2023 15:21, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > Hi Rafał,
> >
> > zajec5@...il.com wrote on Mon, 18 Dec 2023 14:37:22 +0100:
> >
> >> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
> >>
> >> This patch moves all generic (NVMEM devices independent) code from NVMEM
> >> device driver to NVMEM layout driver. Then it adds a simple NVMEM layout
> >> code on top of it.
> >>
> >> Thanks to proper layout it's possible to support U-Boot env data stored
> >> on any kind of NVMEM device.
> >>
> >> For backward compatibility with old DT bindings we need to keep old
> >> NVMEM device driver functional. To avoid code duplication a parsing
> >> function is exported and reused in it.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
> >> ---
> >
> > I have a couple of comments about the original driver which gets
> > copy-pasted in the new layout driver, maybe you could clean these
> > (the memory leak should be fixed before the migration so it can be
> > backported easily, the others are just style so it can be done after, I
> > don't mind).
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> +int u_boot_env_parse(struct device *dev, struct nvmem_device *nvmem,
> >> + enum u_boot_env_format format)
> >> +{
> >> + size_t crc32_data_offset;
> >> + size_t crc32_data_len;
> >> + size_t crc32_offset;
> >> + size_t data_offset;
> >> + size_t data_len;
> >> + size_t dev_size;
> >> + uint32_t crc32;
> >> + uint32_t calc;
> >> + uint8_t *buf;
> >> + int bytes;
> >> + int err;
> >> +
> >> + dev_size = nvmem_dev_size(nvmem);
> >> +
> >> + buf = kcalloc(1, dev_size, GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> > Out of curiosity, why kcalloc(1,...) rather than kzalloc() ?
>
> I used kcalloc() initially as I didn't need buffer to be zeroed.
I think kcalloc() initializes the memory to zero.
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/linux/slab.h#L659
If you don't need it you can switch to kmalloc() instead, I don't mind,
but kcalloc() is meant to be used with arrays, I don't see the point of
using kcalloc() in this case.
>
> I see that memory-allocation.rst however says:
> > And, to be on the safe side it's best to use routines that set memory to zero, like kzalloc().
>
> It's probably close to zero cost to zero that buffer so it could be kzalloc().
>
>
> >> + if (!buf) {
> >> + err = -ENOMEM;
> >> + goto err_out;
> >
> > We could directly return ENOMEM here I guess.
> >
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + bytes = nvmem_device_read(nvmem, 0, dev_size, buf);
> >> + if (bytes < 0)
> >> + return bytes;
> >> + else if (bytes != dev_size)
> >> + return -EIO;
> >
> > Don't we need to free buf in the above cases?
> >
> >> + switch (format) {
> >> + case U_BOOT_FORMAT_SINGLE:
> >> + crc32_offset = offsetof(struct u_boot_env_image_single, crc32);
> >> + crc32_data_offset = offsetof(struct u_boot_env_image_single, data);
> >> + data_offset = offsetof(struct u_boot_env_image_single, data);
> >> + break;
> >> + case U_BOOT_FORMAT_REDUNDANT:
> >> + crc32_offset = offsetof(struct u_boot_env_image_redundant, crc32);
> >> + crc32_data_offset = offsetof(struct u_boot_env_image_redundant, data);
> >> + data_offset = offsetof(struct u_boot_env_image_redundant, data);
> >> + break;
> >> + case U_BOOT_FORMAT_BROADCOM:
> >> + crc32_offset = offsetof(struct u_boot_env_image_broadcom, crc32);
> >> + crc32_data_offset = offsetof(struct u_boot_env_image_broadcom, data);
> >> + data_offset = offsetof(struct u_boot_env_image_broadcom, data);
> >> + break;
> >> + }
> >> + crc32 = le32_to_cpu(*(__le32 *)(buf + crc32_offset));
> >
> > Looks a bit convoluted, any chances we can use intermediate variables
> > to help decipher this?
> >
> >> + crc32_data_len = dev_size - crc32_data_offset;
> >> + data_len = dev_size - data_offset;
> >> +
> >> + calc = crc32(~0, buf + crc32_data_offset, crc32_data_len) ^ ~0L;
> >> + if (calc != crc32) {
> >> + dev_err(dev, "Invalid calculated CRC32: 0x%08x (expected: 0x%08x)\n", calc, crc32);
> >> + err = -EINVAL;
> >> + goto err_kfree;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + buf[dev_size - 1] = '\0';
> >> + err = u_boot_env_parse_cells(dev, nvmem, buf, data_offset, data_len);
> >> + if (err)
> >> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to add cells: %d\n", err);
> >
> > Please drop this error message, the only reason for which the function
> > call would fail is apparently an ENOMEM case.
> >
> >> +
> >> +err_kfree:
> >> + kfree(buf);
> >> +err_out:
> >> + return err;
> >> +}
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(u_boot_env_parse);
> >> +
> >> +static int u_boot_env_add_cells(struct device *dev, struct nvmem_device *nvmem)
> >> +{
> >> + const struct of_device_id *match;
> >> + struct device_node *layout_np;
> >> + enum u_boot_env_format format;
> >> +
> >> + layout_np = of_nvmem_layout_get_container(nvmem);
> >> + if (!layout_np)
> >> + return -ENOENT;
> >> +
> >> + match = of_match_node(u_boot_env_of_match_table, layout_np);
> >> + if (!match)
> >> + return -ENOENT;
> >> +
> >> + format = (uintptr_t)match->data;
> >
> > In the core there is currently an unused helper called
> > nvmem_layout_get_match_data() which does that. I think the original
> > intent of this function was to be used in this driver, so depending on
> > your preference, can you please either use it or remove it?
>
> The problem is that nvmem_layout_get_match_data() uses:
> layout->dev.driver
I'm surprised .driver is unset. Well anyway, please either fix the core
helper and use it or drop the core helper, because we have no user for
it otherwise?
> It doesn't work with layouts driver (since refactoring?) as driver is
> NULL. That results in NULL pointer dereference when trying to reach
> of_match_table.
>
> That is why I used u_boot_env_of_match_table directly.
>
> If you know how to fix nvmem_layout_get_match_data() that would be
> great. Do we need driver_register() somewhere in NVMEM core?
>
Thanks,
Miquèl
Powered by blists - more mailing lists