From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Varshini Rajendran" <varshini.rajendran@microchip.com>
Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 09/17] nvmem: microchip-otpc: nvmem: microchip-otpc: add tag-based packet lookup
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2026 12:27:51 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260804122751.E79AA1F00A3A@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260804113338.261782-10-varshini.rajendran@microchip.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 6 potential issue(s) to consider:
New issues:
- [Medium] TAG-based packet reads fail to bound the requested bytes to the actual packet length, leaking adjacent OTP packets.
Pre-existing issues:
- [High] Concurrent OTP reads cause a hardware race condition on OTP registers without locking.
- [High] Using `readl_relaxed()` for a FIFO data stream causes data corruption on big-endian systems.
- [High] Global static struct `mchp_nvmem_config` is dynamically modified in probe, causing a data race if multiple devices are probed.
- [High] Mismatch between logical size tracking and physical offset causes out-of-bounds hardware reads during probe.
- [High] Incorrect arguments passed to read_poll_timeout(), with sleep_us significantly larger than timeout_us.
--
--- Patch [9]: [PATCH v5 09/17] nvmem: microchip-otpc: nvmem: microchip-otpc: add tag-based packet lookup ---
commit e6e6046319784f7ce1cf86169392921f7f8bb397
Author: Varshini Rajendran <varshini.rajendran@microchip.com>
nvmem: microchip-otpc: nvmem: microchip-otpc: add tag-based packet lookup
This commit adds support for accessing OTP packets by their FourCC tag,
preserving backward compatibility with ID-based lookup. The driver supports
both legacy ID-based offsets and TAG-based offsets by reading and caching
packet metadata during probe. The nvmem stride is also set to 1 to enable
tag-based access.
> diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/microchip-otpc.c b/drivers/nvmem/microchip-otpc.c
> index df979e8549fdb..a17f82afdc37d 100644
> --- a/drivers/nvmem/microchip-otpc.c
> +++ b/drivers/nvmem/microchip-otpc.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -140,8 +190,29 @@ static int mchp_otpc_prepare_read(struct mchp_otpc *otpc,
> * offset returned by hardware.
> *
> * For this, the read function will return the first requested bytes in the
> - * packet. The user will have to be aware of the memory footprint before doing
> - * the read request.
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but are the arguments passed to
read_poll_timeout() in mchp_otpc_prepare_read() correct?
return read_poll_timeout(readl_relaxed, tmp, !(tmp & MCHP_OTPC_SR_READ),
10000, 2000, false, otpc->base + MCHP_OTPC_SR);
The sleep_us parameter is set to 10000 (10ms) while timeout_us is set to 2000
(2ms). Since the sleep time is 5x larger than the total timeout, won't this
instantly return a timeout error on the first sleep cycle if the hardware isn't
immediately ready?
> + * packet.
[ ... ]
> @@ -154,12 +225,11 @@ static int mchp_otpc_read(void *priv, unsigned int off, void *val,
> int ret, payload_size;
>
> /*
> - * We reach this point with off being multiple of stride = 4 to
> - * be able to cross the subsystem. Inside the driver we use continuous
> - * unsigned integer numbers for packet id, thus divide off by 4
> - * before passing it to mchp_otpc_id_to_packet().
> + * From this point the offset has to be translated into the actual
> + * packet. For this we traverse the table of contents stored in a list
> + * "packet" based on the access type - packet id or tag.
> */
> - packet = mchp_otpc_id_to_packet(otpc, off / 4);
> + packet = mchp_otpc_resolve_packet(otpc, off);
> if (!packet)
> return -EINVAL;
> offset = packet->offset;
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but can concurrent OTP reads cause a hardware race
condition?
Looking at mchp_otpc_read(), there is an outer loop that accesses the hardware:
while (len < bytes) {
ret = mchp_otpc_prepare_read(otpc, offset);
When multiple consumers call nvmem_device_read() concurrently,
mchp_otpc_prepare_read() modifies global hardware registers without locking:
writel_relaxed(tmp, otpc->base + MCHP_OTPC_MR);
...
writel_relaxed(tmp, otpc->base + MCHP_OTPC_CR);
Could this clobber the hardware state machine and lead to unpredictable
behavior?
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but does using readl_relaxed() for the FIFO data
stream cause data corruption on big-endian systems?
When reading the payload content in mchp_otpc_read():
do {
*buf++ = readl_relaxed(otpc->base + MCHP_OTPC_DR);
len += sizeof(*buf);
offset++;
payload_size--;
} while (payload_size >= 0 && len < bytes);
The readl_relaxed() macro performs an implicit CPU-to-little-endian byte swap
on big-endian architectures. Should a stream accessor be used instead to
preserve the byte order between the device and memory?
[Severity: Medium]
Does TAG-based packet reading fail to bound the requested bytes to the actual
packet length, leading to a leak of adjacent OTP packets?
If a client requests a read size larger than the actual packet payload, the
inner loop in mchp_otpc_read() exits when the payload size is exhausted:
do {
*buf++ = readl_relaxed(otpc->base + MCHP_OTPC_DR);
len += sizeof(*buf);
offset++;
payload_size--;
} while (payload_size >= 0 && len < bytes);
However, if len is still less than bytes, the outer while (len < bytes) loop
will continue and issue new hardware reads for the next sequential packet.
Could this undermine the packet-based access abstraction by returning adjacent
packet data?
[ ... ]
> @@ -215,6 +300,20 @@ static int mchp_otpc_init_packets_list(struct mchp_otpc *otpc, u32 *size)
>
> packet->id = id++;
> packet->offset = word_pos;
> + type = FIELD_GET(MCHP_OTPC_HR_PACKET, word);
> +
> + if (type == MCHP_OTPC_HR_PACKET_REGULAR) {
> + ret = mchp_otpc_read_packet_tag(otpc, packet->offset,
> + &packet->tag);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + if (!mchp_otpc_is_valid_fourcc(packet->tag))
> + packet->tag = 0;
> + } else {
> + packet->tag = 0;
> + }
> +
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but does a mismatch between the logical size
tracking and the physical offset cause out-of-bounds hardware reads during
probe?
In mchp_otpc_init_packets_list(), the loop increments the size and word_pos:
/* Count size by adding header and paload sizes. */
*size += 4 * (payload_size + 1);
/* Next word: this packet (header, payload) position + 1. */
word_pos += payload_size + 2;
The size pointer increments by 4 * (payload_size + 1) bytes, while word_pos
increments by payload_size + 2 words (which is 4 * (payload_size + 2) bytes).
Because word_pos grows faster than size, could word_pos exceed the hardware
limits before size reaches MCHP_OTPC_SIZE, causing mchp_otpc_prepare_read() to
poll invalid hardware offsets?
[ ... ]
> @@ -236,7 +335,7 @@ static struct nvmem_config mchp_nvmem_config = {
> .type = NVMEM_TYPE_OTP,
> .read_only = true,
> .word_size = 4,
> - .stride = 4,
> + .stride = 1,
> .reg_read = mchp_otpc_read,
> };
[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but does modifying the global static
mchp_nvmem_config struct during probe cause a data race?
In mchp_otpc_probe(), the shared global struct is dynamically modified:
mchp_nvmem_config.dev = otpc->dev;
mchp_nvmem_config.add_legacy_fixed_of_cells = true;
mchp_nvmem_config.size = size;
mchp_nvmem_config.priv = otpc;
If multiple instances of the mchp-otpc driver are probed concurrently, could
this result in invalid private data pointers being registered with the nvmem
core?
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260804113338.261782-1-varshini.rajendran@microchip.com?part=9
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-04 12:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-04 11:33 [PATCH v5 00/17] Add thermal management support for sama7d65 Varshini Rajendran
2026-08-04 11:33 ` [PATCH v5 01/17] dt-bindings: iio: adc: at91-sama5d2: document sama7d65 Varshini Rajendran
2026-08-04 11:33 ` [PATCH v5 02/17] nvmem: add DEFINE_FREE for nvmem_cell_put cleanup Varshini Rajendran
2026-08-04 11:44 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-05 0:38 ` Jonathan Cameron
2026-08-04 11:33 ` [PATCH v5 03/17] iio: adc: at91-sama5d2_adc: use cleanup.h for NVMEM buffer Varshini Rajendran
2026-08-04 11:33 ` [PATCH v5 04/17] iio: adc: at91-sama5d2_adc: rework temp calibration layout handling Varshini Rajendran
2026-08-04 11:56 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-04 11:33 ` [PATCH v5 05/17] iio: adc: at91-sama5d2_adc: add condition to validate calibration data Varshini Rajendran
2026-08-04 11:55 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-04 11:33 ` [PATCH v5 06/17] iio: adc: at91-sama5d2_adc: remove unnecessary casts in of_device_id Varshini Rajendran
2026-08-04 11:33 ` [PATCH v5 07/17] iio: adc: at91-sama5d2_adc: adapt the driver for sama7d65 Varshini Rajendran
2026-08-04 12:08 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-04 11:33 ` [PATCH v5 08/17] dt-bindings: nvmem: microchip,sama7g5-otpc: add sama7d65 and dt node example Varshini Rajendran
2026-08-04 12:15 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-04 11:33 ` [PATCH v5 09/17] nvmem: microchip-otpc: nvmem: microchip-otpc: add tag-based packet lookup Varshini Rajendran
2026-08-04 12:27 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-08-04 11:33 ` [PATCH v5 10/17] nvmem: microchip-otpc: nvmem: add emulation mode and OTP access validation Varshini Rajendran
2026-08-04 12:24 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-04 11:33 ` [PATCH v5 11/17] ARM: dts: microchip: sama7d65: add cpu opps Varshini Rajendran
2026-08-04 12:39 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-04 11:33 ` [PATCH v5 12/17] ARM: dts: microchip: sama7d65: Add ADC node Varshini Rajendran
2026-08-04 12:34 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-04 11:33 ` [PATCH v5 13/17] ARM: dts: microchip: sama7d65_curiosity: Enable ADC, DVFS Varshini Rajendran
2026-08-04 11:33 ` [PATCH v5 14/17] ARM: dts: microchip: sama7d65: add otpc node Varshini Rajendran
2026-08-04 12:53 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-04 11:33 ` [PATCH v5 15/17] ARM: dts: microchip: sama7d65: add cells for temperature calibration Varshini Rajendran
2026-08-04 12:51 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-04 11:33 ` [PATCH v5 16/17] ARM: dts: microchip: sama7d65: add temperature sensor Varshini Rajendran
2026-08-04 13:10 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-04 11:33 ` [PATCH v5 17/17] ARM: dts: microchip: sama7d65: add thermal zones node Varshini Rajendran
2026-08-05 0:48 ` [PATCH v5 00/17] Add thermal management support for sama7d65 Jonathan Cameron
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260804122751.E79AA1F00A3A@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=conor+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=varshini.rajendran@microchip.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox