linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mtd: nand: mxc_nand: implement exec

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: <ZkMsS1jj-ZTpZyE1@pengutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 11:18:03 +0200
From: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
To: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
	Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mtd: nand: mxc_nand: implement exec_op

On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 09:32:56AM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> 
> miquel.raynal@...tlin.com wrote on Mon, 13 May 2024 09:19:02 +0200:
> 
> > Hi Sascha,
> > 
> > > @@ -1717,9 +1465,111 @@ static int mxcnd_setup_interface(struct nand_chip *chip, int chipnr,
> > >  	return host->devtype_data->setup_interface(chip, chipnr, conf);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +static int mxcnd_exec_op(struct nand_chip *chip,
> > > +			 const struct nand_operation *op,
> > > +			 bool check_only)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct mxc_nand_host *host = nand_get_controller_data(chip);
> > > +	struct mtd_info *mtd = nand_to_mtd(chip);
> > > +	int i, j, buf_len;
> > > +	void *buf_read = NULL;
> > > +	const void *buf_write = NULL;
> > > +	const struct nand_op_instr *instr;
> > > +	bool readid = false;
> > > +	bool statusreq = false;
> > > +
> > > +	dev_dbg(host->dev, "%s: %d instructions\n", __func__, op->ninstrs);  
> > 
> > Maybe you want to get rid of this debug line.

Ok.

> > 
> > > +
> > > +	if (check_only)
> > > +		return 0;
> > > +
> > > +	for (i = 0; i < op->ninstrs; i++) {
> > > +		instr = &op->instrs[i];
> > > +
> > > +		nand_op_trace("  ", instr);
> > > +
> > > +		switch (instr->type) {
> > > +		case NAND_OP_WAITRDY_INSTR:
> > > +			/*
> > > +			 * NFC handles R/B internally. Therefore, this function
> > > +			 * always returns status as ready.  
> > 
> > This is no longer a standalone function, maybe:
> > 
> > "The controller handles the R/B pin internally, therefore there is
> > nothing to do here."

Ok.

> 
> And this is actually very wrong.
> 
> You should call wait_op_done() instead.

No, I don't think so. wait_op_done() is called to wait for the interrupt
of the controller indicating a basic operation is done. A basic operation
can be that a command is being sent or an address byte has been sent to
the chip during an address cycle.

With this arbitrary example:

	struct nand_op_instr instrs[] = {
		NAND_OP_CMD(NAND_CMD_READ0, 0),
		NAND_OP_ADDR(4, addrs, 0),
		NAND_OP_CMD(NAND_CMD_READSTART, NAND_COMMON_TIMING_NS(conf, tWB_max)),
		NAND_OP_WAIT_RDY(NAND_COMMON_TIMING_MS(conf, tR_max),
				 NAND_COMMON_TIMING_NS(conf, tRR_min)),
		NAND_OP_DATA_IN(len, buf, 0),
	};

I'll call wait_op_done() once for NAND_CMD_READ0, four times for the NAND_OP_ADDR,
then once again for the NAND_CMD_READSTART command and four times (on i.MX27, once
per subpage) for the NAND_OP_DATA_IN operation. Calling wait_op_done() for the
NAND_OP_WAIT_RDY operation woul only timeout because there is no operation in flight
currently.

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |