linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] usb: typec: tipd: add patch update support for tps6598x

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]

Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 18:15:17 +0100
From: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco@...fvision.net>
To: Roger Quadros <rogerq@...nel.org>, Jai Luthra <j-luthra@...com>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
 linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vigneshr@...com,
 d-gole@...com, nm@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] usb: typec: tipd: add patch update support for
 tps6598x

On 04.01.24 18:08, Roger Quadros wrote:
> 
> 
> On 04/01/2024 18:36, Javier Carrasco wrote:
>> Hi Roger,
>>
>> that fix only removes the reset function and does nothing instead, but
>> the reset call is identical for both devices (hence why there was a
>> single function for both devices). As I mentioned in my reply to Jai
> 
> This is incorrect.
> 
> Look at the original code, the GAID command is issued only if it is a
> tps25750 device.
> 
> Below is your part of the code that replaces it with reset() ops.
> 
>> @@ -1340,8 +1360,8 @@ static int tps6598x_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
>>  	tps6598x_write64(tps, TPS_REG_INT_MASK1, 0);
>>  err_reset_controller:
>>  	/* Reset PD controller to remove any applied patch */
>> -	if (is_tps25750)
>> -		tps6598x_exec_cmd_tmo(tps, "GAID", 0, NULL, 0, NULL, 2000, 0);
>> +	tps->data->reset(tps);
>> +
>>  	return ret;
>>  }
> 
> which means the GAID command will be executed for both tps25750 and tps6598x
> as you have a single reset function for both.
> This is a problem for boards using the tps6598x.
> 
I have to admit that the GAID for the tps6598x should have been added
separately, and not right away with the function pointers. I added extra
functionality that was not expected. On the other hand, the GAID command
is supported by the tps6598x as well (Technical Reference Manual, page
113). Hence why I was surprised that using the same command for the
tps6598x is a problem.