linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: fw-download: Fix find firmware req

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: <aPjl7G7fmvqtgww1@stanley.mountain>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 17:10:52 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Ayush Singh <ayush@...gleboard.org>
Cc: Jason Kridner <jkridner@...gleboard.org>,
	Deepak Khatri <lorforlinux@...gleboard.org>,
	Robert Nelson <robertcnelson@...gleboard.org>,
	Dhruva Gole <d-gole@...com>, Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>,
	Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, Alex Elder <elder@...nel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: fw-download: Fix find firmware req

On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 07:22:49PM +0530, Ayush Singh wrote:
> 
> On 10/22/25 5:33 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 12:57:57PM +0530, Ayush Singh wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/fw-download.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/fw-download.c
> > > index 9a09bd3af79ba0dcf7efa683f4e86246bcd473a5..06f1be8f3121e29551ea8416d5ee2666339b2fe3 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/fw-download.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/fw-download.c
> > > @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ static int exceeds_release_timeout(struct fw_request *fw_req)
> > >   /* This returns path of the firmware blob on the disk */
> > >   static struct fw_request *find_firmware(struct fw_download *fw_download,
> > > -					const char *tag)
> > > +					const char *tag, const char *format)
> > >   {
> > >   	struct gb_interface *intf = fw_download->connection->bundle->intf;
> > >   	struct fw_request *fw_req;
> > > @@ -178,10 +178,17 @@ static struct fw_request *find_firmware(struct fw_download *fw_download,
> > >   	}
> > >   	fw_req->firmware_id = ret;
> > > -	snprintf(fw_req->name, sizeof(fw_req->name),
> > > -		 FW_NAME_PREFIX "%08x_%08x_%08x_%08x_%s.tftf",
> > > -		 intf->ddbl1_manufacturer_id, intf->ddbl1_product_id,
> > > -		 intf->vendor_id, intf->product_id, tag);
> > > +	if (strnlen(format, GB_FIRMWARE_FORMAT_MAX_SIZE) == 0) {
> > Change this to:
> > 
> > 	if (format[0] == '\0') {
> > 
> > In the caller, the assumption that format is at least
> > GB_FIRMWARE_FORMAT_MAX_SIZE makes sense but in this function it
> > doesn't make sense.
> 
> Ok, will do in the next version.
> 
> > > +		snprintf(fw_req->name, sizeof(fw_req->name),
> > > +			 FW_NAME_PREFIX "%08x_%08x_%08x_%08x_%s",
> > > +			 intf->ddbl1_manufacturer_id, intf->ddbl1_product_id,
> > > +			 intf->vendor_id, intf->product_id, tag);
> > > +	} else {
> > > +		snprintf(fw_req->name, sizeof(fw_req->name),
> > > +			 FW_NAME_PREFIX "%08x_%08x_%08x_%08x_%s.%s",
> > > +			 intf->ddbl1_manufacturer_id, intf->ddbl1_product_id,
> > > +			 intf->vendor_id, intf->product_id, tag, format);
> > > +	}
> > >   	dev_info(fw_download->parent, "Requested firmware package '%s'\n",
> > >   		 fw_req->name);
> > > @@ -225,7 +232,7 @@ static int fw_download_find_firmware(struct gb_operation *op)
> > >   	struct gb_fw_download_find_firmware_request *request;
> > >   	struct gb_fw_download_find_firmware_response *response;
> > >   	struct fw_request *fw_req;
> > > -	const char *tag;
> > > +	const char *tag, *format;
> > >   	if (op->request->payload_size != sizeof(*request)) {
> > >   		dev_err(fw_download->parent,
> > We have changed the sizeof(*request) but we haven't changed
> > ->payload_size so how can this ever be true?  Did you test this change?
> 
> 
> The request originates in greybus node. The payload size here is calculate
> from the greybus message header. It is not a hard coded value. So as long as
> the node sets it correctly, it will work fine.

I guess, how was this working for other people then?  It seems like a
behavior change.

regards,
dan carpenter