Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-56022-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240206042408.224138-1-joychakr@google.com> <1ecb3744-7baf-4bdd-a01c-8c87fa0a42b3@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <1ecb3744-7baf-4bdd-a01c-8c87fa0a42b3@linaro.org>
From: Joy Chakraborty <joychakr@google.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 12:05:25 +0530
Message-ID: <CAOSNQF2TpA1QXKQBEZXsjXojGcfRKZDjCtLhRUGwLPVfhNWmgA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] nvmem: rmem: Fix return value of rmem_read()
To: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, 
	Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenz@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, manugautam@google.com, 
	stable@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 4:06=E2=80=AFAM Srinivas Kandagatla
<srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 06/02/2024 04:24, Joy Chakraborty wrote:
> > reg_read() callback registered with nvmem core expects an integer error
> > as a return value but rmem_read() returns the number of bytes read, as =
a
> > result error checks in nvmem core fail even when they shouldn't.
> >
> > Return 0 on success where number of bytes read match the number of byte=
s
> > requested and a negative error -EINVAL on all other cases.
> >
> > Fixes: 5a3fa75a4d9c ("nvmem: Add driver to expose reserved memory as nv=
mem")
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Joy Chakraborty <joychakr@google.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/nvmem/rmem.c | 7 ++++++-
> >   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/rmem.c b/drivers/nvmem/rmem.c
> > index 752d0bf4445e..a74dfa279ff4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/nvmem/rmem.c
> > +++ b/drivers/nvmem/rmem.c
> > @@ -46,7 +46,12 @@ static int rmem_read(void *context, unsigned int off=
set,
> >
> >       memunmap(addr);
> >
> > -     return count;
> > +     if (count !=3D bytes) {
>
> How can this fail unless the values set in priv->mem->size is incorrect
>

That should be correct since it would be fetched from the reserved
memory definition in the device tree.

> Only case I see this failing with short reads is when offset cross the
> boundary of priv->mem->size.
>
>
> can you provide more details on the failure usecase, may be with actual
> values of offsets, bytes and priv->mem->size?
>

This could very well happen if a fixed-layout defined for the reserved
memory has a cell which defines an offset and size greater than the
actual size of the reserved mem.
For E.g. if the device tree node is as follows
reserved-memory {
    #address-cells =3D <1>;
    #size-cells =3D <1>;
    ranges;
    nvmem@1000 {
        compatible =3D "nvmem-rmem";
        reg =3D <0x1000 0x400>;
        no-map;
        nvmem-layout {
            compatible =3D "fixed-layout";
            #address-cells =3D <1>;
            #size-cells =3D <1>;
            calibration@13ff {
                reg =3D <0x13ff 0x2>;
            };
        };
    };
};
If we try to read the cell "calibration" which crosses the boundary of
the reserved memory then it will lead to a short read.
Though, one might argue that the protection against such cell
definition should be there during fixed-layout parsing in core itself
but that is not there now and would not be a fix.

What I am trying to fix here is not exactly short reads but how the
return value of rmem_read() is treated by the nvmem core, where it
treats a non-zero return from read as an error currently. Hence
returning the number of bytes read leads to false failures if we try
to read a cell.


>
> > +             dev_err(priv->dev, "Failed read memory (%d)\n", count);
> > +             return -EINVAL;
> > +     }
> > +
>
> > +     return 0;
>
> thanks,
> srini
>
> >   }
> >
> >   static int rmem_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)