From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
To: "Michael Walle" <mwalle@kernel.org>
Cc: "Tudor Ambarus" <tudor.ambarus@linaro.org>,
"Pratyush Yadav" <pratyush@kernel.org>,
"Richard Weinberger" <richard@nod.at>,
"Vignesh Raghavendra" <vigneshr@ti.com>,
"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>,
"Sean Anderson" <sean.anderson@linux.dev>,
"Thomas Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
"Steam Lin" <STLin2@winbond.com>,
<linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/19] mtd: spi-nor: swp: Improve locking user experience
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 10:13:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87bjkye667.fsf@bootlin.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DEBPI49KKW00.3MSWMX9HQL7JZ@kernel.org> (Michael Walle's message of "Tue, 18 Nov 2025 10:17:55 +0100")
On 18/11/2025 at 10:17:55 +01, "Michael Walle" <mwalle@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Fri Nov 14, 2025 at 6:53 PM CET, Miquel Raynal wrote:
>> In the case of a single block being locked, if the user want to fully
>> unlock the device it has two possibilities:
>> - either it asks to unlock the entire device, and this works;
>> - or it asks to unlock just the blocks that are currently locked, which
>> fails.
>>
>> It fails because the conditions "can_be_top" and "can_be_bottom" are
>> true. Indeed, in this case, we unlock everything, to the TB bit does not
>> matter. However in the current implementation, use_top would be true (as
>> this is the favourite option) and lock_len, which in practice should be
>> reduced down to 0, is set to "nor->params->size - (ofs + len)" which is
>> a positive number. This is wrong.
>
> This only happens if you try to unlock the first sector, correct? If
> my maths are correct, trying it on the last sector, lock_len should
> be 0, i.e in that case "ofs + len == size".
>
> If it's the first sector (or sectors), lock_len will end up with
> "size - N * 64k", which is clearly wrong.
That's it. Actually I forgot to mention it was happening only with the
first sectors, not the last ones, so yes you are correct, it matches my
maths and experiments.
>> An easy way is to simply add an extra condition. In the unlock() path,
>> if we can achieve the results from both sides, it means we unlock
>> everything and lock_len must simply be 0.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
>> ---
>> For me, this result was clearly unexpected, but I am not sure this
>> qualifies as a fix.
>
> That's definetly a bug, esp. because it will lock an entire
> unrelated region. And it seems to go back all the to commit
> 3dd8012a8eeb "mtd: spi-nor: add TB (Top/Bottom) protect support").
>
>> ---
>> drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c | 4 +++-
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c
>> index 9b07f83aeac76dce2109f90dfa1534c9bd93330d..9bc5a356444665ad8824e9e12d679fd551b3e67d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c
>> @@ -281,7 +281,9 @@ static int spi_nor_sr_unlock(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs, u64 len)
>> use_top = can_be_top;
>>
>> /* lock_len: length of region that should remain locked */
>> - if (use_top)
>> + if (can_be_top && can_be_bottom)
>> + lock_len = 0;
>
> Could you please add a comment stating that if both are true, it
> means that both adjacent regions are unlocked and thus the entire
> flash will be unlocked.
Ofc.
Thanks,
Miquèl
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-11-19 9:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-11-14 17:53 [PATCH 00/19] mtd: spi-nor: Enhance software protection Miquel Raynal
2025-11-14 17:53 ` [PATCH 01/19] mtd: spi-nor: debugfs: Fix the flags list Miquel Raynal
2025-11-18 7:43 ` Michael Walle
2025-11-14 17:53 ` [PATCH 02/19] mtd: spi-nor: swp: Improve locking user experience Miquel Raynal
2025-11-18 9:17 ` Michael Walle
2025-11-19 9:13 ` Miquel Raynal [this message]
2025-11-14 17:53 ` [PATCH 03/19] mtd: spi-nor: Improve opcodes documentation Miquel Raynal
2025-11-18 9:22 ` Michael Walle
2025-11-14 17:53 ` [PATCH 04/19] mtd: spi-nor: debugfs: Align variable access with the rest of the file Miquel Raynal
2025-11-18 9:23 ` Michael Walle
2025-11-14 17:53 ` [PATCH 05/19] mtd: spi-nor: debugfs: Enhance output Miquel Raynal
2025-11-18 9:24 ` Michael Walle
2025-11-14 17:53 ` [PATCH 06/19] mtd: spi-nor: swp: Explain the MEMLOCK ioctl implementation behaviour Miquel Raynal
2025-11-18 9:53 ` Michael Walle
2025-11-19 9:18 ` Miquel Raynal
2025-11-14 17:53 ` [PATCH 07/19] mtd: spi-nor: swp: Clarify a comment Miquel Raynal
2025-11-18 9:55 ` Michael Walle
2025-11-19 9:19 ` Miquel Raynal
2025-11-14 17:53 ` [PATCH 08/19] mtd: spi-nor: swp: Use a pointer for SR instead of a single byte Miquel Raynal
2025-11-14 17:53 ` [PATCH 09/19] mtd: spi-nor: swp: Create a helper that writes SR, CR and checks Miquel Raynal
2025-11-14 17:53 ` [PATCH 10/19] mtd: spi-nor: swp: Rename a mask Miquel Raynal
2025-11-14 17:53 ` [PATCH 11/19] mtd: spi-nor: swp: Create a TB intermediate variable Miquel Raynal
2025-11-14 17:53 ` [PATCH 12/19] mtd: spi-nor: swp: Create helpers for building the SR register Miquel Raynal
2025-11-14 17:53 ` [PATCH 13/19] mtd: spi-nor: swp: Simplify checking the locked/unlocked range Miquel Raynal
2025-11-14 17:53 ` [PATCH 14/19] mtd: spi-nor: swp: Cosmetic changes Miquel Raynal
2025-11-14 17:53 ` [PATCH 15/19] mtd: spi-nor: debugfs: Add locking support Miquel Raynal
2025-11-18 12:46 ` Michael Walle
2025-11-19 9:49 ` Miquel Raynal
2025-11-19 10:50 ` Michael Walle
2025-11-19 17:43 ` Miquel Raynal
2025-11-14 17:53 ` [PATCH 16/19] mtd: spi-nor: Add steps for testing " Miquel Raynal
2025-11-18 12:24 ` Michael Walle
2025-11-19 9:40 ` Miquel Raynal
2025-11-19 10:27 ` Michael Walle
2025-11-19 17:35 ` Miquel Raynal
2025-11-14 17:53 ` [PATCH 17/19] mtd: spi-nor: swp: Add support for the complement feature Miquel Raynal
2025-11-14 17:53 ` [PATCH 18/19] mtd: spi-nor: Add steps for testing locking with CMP Miquel Raynal
2025-11-14 17:53 ` [PATCH 19/19] mtd: spi-nor: winbond: Add CMP locking support Miquel Raynal
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=87bjkye667.fsf@bootlin.com \
--to=miquel.raynal@bootlin.com \
--cc=STLin2@winbond.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=mwalle@kernel.org \
--cc=pratyush@kernel.org \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=sean.anderson@linux.dev \
--cc=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com \
--cc=tudor.ambarus@linaro.org \
--cc=vigneshr@ti.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).