Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-158882-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240416091509.19995-1-johan+linaro@kernel.org>
 <CAD=FV=UBHvz2S5bd8eso030-E=rhbAypz_BnO-vmB1vNo+4Uvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Zid6lfQMlDp3HQ67@hovoldconsulting.com> <CAD=FV=XoBwYmYGTdFNYMtJRnm6VAGf+-wq-ODVkxQqN3XeVHBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZioW9IDT7B4sas4l@hovoldconsulting.com> <CAD=FV=X5DGd9E40rve7bV7Z1bZx+oO0OzjsygEGQz-tJ=XbKBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZiqBQ3r3gRk2HBir@hovoldconsulting.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZiqBQ3r3gRk2HBir@hovoldconsulting.com>
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 09:19:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=UXHWUfg-Gh0u3PG67O5fHLhWqhGPQFQjZMmEYt3Pw-Wg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: qca: fix invalid device address check
To: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
Cc: Janaki Ramaiah Thota <quic_janathot@quicinc.com>, Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>, 
	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>, Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@gmail.com>, 
	Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>, linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, 
	Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 9:13=E2=80=AFAM Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org> wro=
te:
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 11:22:50PM +0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
>
> > Quick question. I haven't spent lots of time digging into the
> > Bluetooth subsystem, but it seems like if the device tree property is
> > there it should take precedence anyway, shouldn't it? In other words:
> > if we think there is built-in storage for the MAC address but we also
> > see a device tree property then we need to decide which of the two we
> > are going to use. Are there any instances where there's a bogus DT
> > property and we want the built-in storage to override it?
>
> I guess we could decide to implement something like that, but note that
> a devicetree may have an all-zero address defined by default which the
> boot firmware may or may not fill in.
>
> So we can't just use the presence of the address property as an
> indication that the device has an address, but we could of course parse
> it and see if it's non-zero first. (Actually, I think this bit about
> checking for a non-zero address is already implemented.)

This would make me feel safer. Given that you've now found that the
MAC address is in the firmware, I worry that someone will update the
firmware and change the default and we'll forget to update here.
_Hopefully_ someone would notice before pushing the firmware out to
the world, but it still seems like a more fragile solution than just
seeing that there's a perfectly valid BT address in the device tree
and using that.


> Note however that we still need to determine when the controller address
> is invalid for the common case where there is no devicetree property and
> user space needs to provide an address before the controller can be used.

Fair enough.

-Doug