From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C50DC4338F for ; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 16:03:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34AF460EB1 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 16:03:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229535AbhGXPWr (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Jul 2021 11:22:47 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:40992 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229461AbhGXPWr (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Jul 2021 11:22:47 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A74AD60E91; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 16:03:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1627142598; bh=uTpAM46Sxed+s6G1/L2bx3An7H0WSNp2eYFNoZ2hZEM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=qTZsJhG8vIPCjJoN/ToyYi9DLuoOcHA+uMlu/zBt3V0Db9xPIzFGVc7ZESya0DGZG YxHtn7TOPoP40UWoRd58aNYpH0g3zf/mJiB379mlGsNTINbkawlHG9n8R3TMkbCKpl IuHpcrsL0euzza0axUhPElEdTRqbondaC7TtdJ0f5MywXkkvTmAHihl8+OTwNSE8Px 0ADEE6VU3IQ0NmKrR85nANtcl1MPgiPUVkmSMNo9V/Yc6wMoaGMY7yAXgYoqecg2LI vbD0/5z687vtHTb9RM9UjTo4ejTlv14LqVtsjpPTTPhLUYoleV48mFtM94bvqRTau6 qyxLbpbCj11Ow== Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2021 21:33:08 +0530 From: Manivannan Sadhasivam To: Martin Kaiser Cc: Miquel Raynal , Dan Carpenter , Richard Weinberger , Vignesh Raghavendra , Boris Brezillon , Tudor Ambarus , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: Add a check in of_get_nand_secure_regions() Message-ID: <20210724160308.GA62321@thinkpad> References: <20210715225045.66185-1-miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> <20210724142712.GA24036@martin-debian-1.paytec.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210724142712.GA24036@martin-debian-1.paytec.ch> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 04:27:30PM +0200, Martin Kaiser wrote: > Hi all, > > Thus wrote Miquel Raynal (miquel.raynal@bootlin.com): > > > On Thu, 2021-06-17 at 13:37:25 UTC, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > Check for whether of_property_count_elems_of_size() returns a negative > > > error code. > > > > Fixes: 13b89768275d ("mtd: rawnand: Add support for secure regions in NAND memory") > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter > > > Reviewed-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam > > > Applied to https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mtd/linux.git mtd/fixes, thanks. > > I'm running linux-next on an imx25 system with the following flash chip > > [ 1.997539] nand: device found, Manufacturer ID: 0x98, Chip ID: 0xaa > [ 2.004134] nand: Toshiba NAND 256MiB 1,8V 8-bit > [ 2.008917] nand: 256 MiB, SLC, erase size: 128 KiB, page size: 2048, OOB size: 128 > > The system is using the drivers/mtd/nand/raw/mxc_nand.c driver. > > Since this commit appeared in linux-next, mxc_nand's probe function fails > with -EINVAL, taking this path > > mxcnd_probe > nand_scan > nand_scan_with_ids > nand_scan_tail > of_get_nand_secure_regions > > nr_elem = of_property_count_elems_of_size(dn, "secure-regions", sizeof(u64)); > returns -EINVAL as there's no secure-regions property in my device tree. > Doh! Sorry for missing this. > We should certainly handle negative error codes before we calculate > chip->nr_secure_regions = nr_elem / 2 > but a missing secure-regions property is a valid case and should not make > the probe fail. > Absolutely! > If the property exists, but the device-tree entry is incorrect > and of_property_count_elems_of_size returns -ENODATA, we might print a > warning and ignore the entry. > Hmm, I think it is best to error out in this case as the user has got DT wrong. > What do you think? > Since of_property_count_elems_of_size() returns -EINVAL if the length is not a multiple of sizeof(u64), we can't just ignore -EINVAL. So I think we can just check for the existence of the property before invoking of_get_nand_secure_regions(). Miquel, what do you think? Thanks, Mani > Thanks, > > Martin