netdev - [PATCH] can: m_can: implement errata "Needless activation of MRAF irq"

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1551710357-20215-1-git-send-email-eugen.hristev@microchip.com>
Date:   Mon, 4 Mar 2019 14:44:13 +0000
From:   <Eugen.Hristev@...rochip.com>
To:     <wg@...ndegger.com>, <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
        <linux-can@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     <Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com>, <Eugen.Hristev@...rochip.com>
Subject: [PATCH] can: m_can: implement errata "Needless activation of MRAF
 irq"

From: Eugen Hristev <eugen.hristev@...rochip.com>

During frame reception while the MCAN is in Error Passive state
and the Receive Error Counter has thevalue MCAN_ECR.REC = 127, it may happen
that MCAN_IR.MRAF is set although there was no Message RAM access failure.
If MCAN_IR.MRAF is enabled, an interrupt to the Host CPU is generated.
Work around:
The Message RAM Access Failure interrupt routine needs to check whether
 MCAN_ECR.RP = '1' and MCAN_ECR.REC = '127'.
In this case, reset MCAN_IR.MRAF. No further action is required.
This affects versions older than 3.2.0

Errata explained on Sama5d2 SoC which includes this hardware block:
http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/SAMA5D2-Family-Silicon-Errata-and-Data-Sheet-Clarification-DS80000803B.pdf chapter 6.2

Reproducibility: If 2 devices with m_can are connected back to back,
configuring different bitrate on them will lead to interrupt storm on the
receiving side, with error "Message RAM access failure occurred".
Another way is to have a bad hardware connection. Bad wire connection can lead
to this issue as well.

This patch fixes the issue according to provided workaround.

Signed-off-by: Eugen Hristev <eugen.hristev@...rochip.com>
---
 drivers/net/can/m_can/m_can.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/net/can/m_can/m_can.c b/drivers/net/can/m_can/m_can.c
index 9b44940..deb274a 100644
--- a/drivers/net/can/m_can/m_can.c
+++ b/drivers/net/can/m_can/m_can.c
@@ -822,6 +822,27 @@ static int m_can_poll(struct napi_struct *napi, int quota)
 	if (!irqstatus)
 		goto end;
 
+	/* Errata workaround for issue "Needless activation of MRAF irq"
+	 * During frame reception while the MCAN is in Error Passive state
+	 * and the Receive Error Counter has the value MCAN_ECR.REC = 127,
+	 * it may happen that MCAN_IR.MRAF is set although there was no
+	 * Message RAM access failure.
+	 * If MCAN_IR.MRAF is enabled, an interrupt to the Host CPU is generated
+	 * The Message RAM Access Failure interrupt routine needs to check
+	 * whether MCAN_ECR.RP = ’1’ and MCAN_ECR.REC = 127.
+	 * In this case, reset MCAN_IR.MRAF. No further action is required.
+	 */
+	if ((priv->version <= 31) && (irqstatus & IR_MRAF) &&
+	    (m_can_read(priv, M_CAN_ECR) & ECR_RP)) {
+		struct can_berr_counter bec;
+
+		__m_can_get_berr_counter(dev, &bec);
+		if (bec.rxerr == 127) {
+			m_can_write(priv, M_CAN_IR, IR_MRAF);
+			irqstatus &= ~IR_MRAF;
+		}
+	}
+
 	psr = m_can_read(priv, M_CAN_PSR);
 	if (irqstatus & IR_ERR_STATE)
 		work_done += m_can_handle_state_errors(dev, psr);
-- 
2.7.4