From: Dirk Eibach <[email protected]>
While testing Moxa C218T/PCI on PowerPC 405EP I found that loading
firmware using the linux kernel driver fails because calculation of the
checksum is not endianess independent in the original code.
After I fixed this I found that uploading firmware in a system with
multiple cards causes a kernel oops. I had a look in the recent moxa
sources and found that they do some kind of locking there. Applying this
lock fixed the problem.
This patch applies to kernel 2.6.16.
Signed-off-by: Dirk Eibach <[email protected]>
---
--- linux-2.6.16/drivers/char/moxa.c 2006-03-20 06:53:29.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.16-chameleon/drivers/char/moxa.c 2006-08-18
13:21:59.000000000 +0200
@@ -143,6 +143,7 @@ typedef struct _moxa_board_conf {
static moxa_board_conf moxa_boards[MAX_BOARDS];
static void __iomem *moxaBaseAddr[MAX_BOARDS];
+static int loadstat[MAX_BOARDS]={0,0,0,0};
struct moxa_str {
int type;
@@ -1690,6 +1691,8 @@ int MoxaDriverPoll(void)
if (moxaCard == 0)
return (-1);
for (card = 0; card < MAX_BOARDS; card++) {
+ if(loadstat[card]==0)
+ continue;
if ((ports = moxa_boards[card].numPorts) == 0)
continue;
if (readb(moxaIntPend[card]) == 0xff) {
@@ -2905,6 +2908,7 @@ static int moxaloadcode(int cardno, unsi
}
break;
}
+ loadstat[cardno] = 1;
return (0);
}
@@ -2922,7 +2926,7 @@ static int moxaloadc218(int cardno, void
len1 = len >> 1;
ptr = (ushort *) moxaBuff;
for (i = 0; i < len1; i++)
- usum += *(ptr + i);
+ usum += le16_to_cpu(*(ptr + i));
retry = 0;
do {
len1 = len >> 1;
@@ -2994,7 +2998,7 @@ static int moxaloadc320(int cardno, void
wlen = len >> 1;
uptr = (ushort *) moxaBuff;
for (i = 0; i < wlen; i++)
- usum += uptr[i];
+ usum += le16_to_cpu(uptr[i]);
retry = 0;
j = 0;
do {
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 01:39:10PM +0200, Dirk Eibach wrote:
> From: Dirk Eibach <[email protected]>
>
> While testing Moxa C218T/PCI on PowerPC 405EP I found that loading
> firmware using the linux kernel driver fails because calculation of the
> checksum is not endianess independent in the original code.
>
> After I fixed this I found that uploading firmware in a system with
> multiple cards causes a kernel oops. I had a look in the recent moxa
> sources and found that they do some kind of locking there. Applying this
> lock fixed the problem.
Patch for endian bug needs sparse endian annotations as well.
--------------------------------------
[PATCH] moxa: fix checksum endianness
From: Dirk Eibach <[email protected]>
While testing Moxa C218T/PCI on PowerPC 405EP I found that loading
firmware using the linux kernel driver fails because calculation of the
checksum is not endianess independent in the original code.
Signed-off-by: Dirk Eibach <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <[email protected]>
---
drivers/char/moxa.c | 13 +++++++------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
--- a/drivers/char/moxa.c
+++ b/drivers/char/moxa.c
@@ -2910,7 +2910,8 @@ static int moxaloadc218(int cardno, void
{
char retry;
int i, j, len1, len2;
- ushort usum, *ptr, keycode;
+ ushort usum, keycode;
+ __le16 *ptr;
if (moxa_boards[cardno].boardType == MOXA_BOARD_CP204J)
keycode = CP204J_KeyCode;
@@ -2918,9 +2919,9 @@ static int moxaloadc218(int cardno, void
keycode = C218_KeyCode;
usum = 0;
len1 = len >> 1;
- ptr = (ushort *) moxaBuff;
+ ptr = (__le16 *) moxaBuff;
for (i = 0; i < len1; i++)
- usum += *(ptr + i);
+ usum += le16_to_cpu(*(ptr + i));
retry = 0;
do {
len1 = len >> 1;
@@ -2986,13 +2987,13 @@ static int moxaloadc320(int cardno, void
{
ushort usum;
int i, j, wlen, len2, retry;
- ushort *uptr;
+ __le16 *uptr;
usum = 0;
wlen = len >> 1;
- uptr = (ushort *) moxaBuff;
+ uptr = (__le16 *) moxaBuff;
for (i = 0; i < wlen; i++)
- usum += uptr[i];
+ usum += le16_to_cpu(uptr[i]);
retry = 0;
j = 0;
do {
Ar Gwe, 2006-08-18 am 13:39 +0200, ysgrifennodd Dirk Eibach:
> From: Dirk Eibach <[email protected]>
>
> While testing Moxa C218T/PCI on PowerPC 405EP I found that loading
> firmware using the linux kernel driver fails because calculation of the
> checksum is not endianess independent in the original code.
> Signed-off-by: Dirk Eibach <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
Checksum changes are clearly correct. Other changes is an improvement
but not I think enough to handle malicious firmware attacks. That said
such an attacker has CAP_SYS_RAWIO anyway so that part is irrelevant
except for neatness