linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/19] mtd: spi-nor: swp: Explain the MEMLOCK ioctl implementation behaviour

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: <875xb6e5y8.fsf@bootlin.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 10:18:23 +0100
From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To: "Michael Walle" <mwalle@...nel.org>
Cc: "Tudor Ambarus" <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>,  "Pratyush Yadav"
 <pratyush@...nel.org>,  "Richard Weinberger" <richard@....at>,  "Vignesh
 Raghavendra" <vigneshr@...com>,  "Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@....net>,
  "Sean Anderson" <sean.anderson@...ux.dev>,  "Thomas Petazzoni"
 <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,  "Steam Lin" <STLin2@...bond.com>,
  <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,  <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
  <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/19] mtd: spi-nor: swp: Explain the MEMLOCK ioctl
 implementation behaviour

On 18/11/2025 at 10:53:42 +01, "Michael Walle" <mwalle@...nel.org> wrote:

> On Fri Nov 14, 2025 at 6:53 PM CET, Miquel Raynal wrote:
>> Add comments about how these requests are actually handled in the SPI
>> NOR core. Their behaviour was not entirely clear to me at first, and
>> explaining them in plain English sounds the way to go.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c | 8 ++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c
>> index 9bc5a356444665ad8824e9e12d679fd551b3e67d..ede03f26de3c65ff53c1cb888c2c43aea268b85a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c
>> @@ -341,6 +341,14 @@ static int spi_nor_sr_is_locked(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs, u64 len)
>>  	return spi_nor_is_locked_sr(nor, ofs, len, nor->bouncebuf[0]);
>>  }
>>  
>> +/*
>> + * These ioctls behave according to the following rules:
>> + * ->lock(): Never locks more than what is requested, ie. may lock less
>
> That behavior sounds so wrong... The user requests a region to be
> locked, and it isn't actually locked.

Agreed. I really got puzzled by that.

>> + * ->unlock(): Never unlocks more than what is requested, ie. may unlock less
>
> That seems somewhat sane.
>
> Maybe we should return -EINVAL if ofs or ofs+len aren't at sector
> boundaries. Yeah it's a change in the UAPI, but I'm not sure the
> current behavior is not harmful and misleading.

I would even go further and propose to return -EINVAL whenever the
request is not exactly doable. Being at a block boundary is not enough,
as there are many boundaries we cannot describe with just 4 protection
bits.

But this is somewhat a uAPI change indeed. So in the first place, I will
keep this comment. But if we feel like we should make the uAPI stricter,
it can come on top. Doing this would require a broad acknowledgement.

>> + * -is_locked(): Checks if the region is *fully* locked, returns false otherwise.
>> + *               This feeback may be misleading because users may get an "unlocked"
>> + *               status even though a subpart of the region is effectively locked.
>> + */
>>  static const struct spi_nor_locking_ops spi_nor_sr_locking_ops = {
>>  	.lock = spi_nor_sr_lock,
>>  	.unlock = spi_nor_sr_unlock,
>
> Anyway, as it is how it's currently behaving:
>
> Reviewed-by: Michael Walle <mwalle@...nel.org>

Thanks!
Miquèl