Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] ufs: core: Add advanced RPMB support in ufs_bsg | From | Bean Huo <> | Date | Mon, 28 Nov 2022 20:01:27 +0100 |
| |
On Tue, 2022-11-22 at 11:55 +0000, Avri Altman wrote: > > +static int ufs_bsg_exec_advanced_rpmb_req(struct ufs_hba *hba, > > struct > > +bsg_job *job) { > > + struct ufs_rpmb_request *rpmb_request = job->request; > > + struct ufs_rpmb_reply *rpmb_reply = job->reply; > > + struct bsg_buffer *payload = NULL; > > + enum dma_data_direction dir; > > + struct scatterlist *sg_list; > > + int rpmb_req_type; > > + int sg_cnt; > > + int ret; > > + int data_len; > > + > > + if (hba->ufs_version < ufshci_version(4, 0) || !hba- > > > dev_info.b_advanced_rpmb_en || > > + !(hba->capabilities & MASK_EHSLUTRD_SUPPORTED)) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + > > + if (rpmb_request->ehs_req.length != 2 || rpmb_request- > > > ehs_req.ehs_type != 1) > > + return -EINVAL; > Maybe you could also check: > In case of rpmb write, the request payload 4096 × Advanced RPMB Block > Count, > And same goes for response payload for rpmb read. > > Thanks, > Avri >
Hi Avri,
in Spec:
"If the Block Count indicates a value greater than bRPMB_ReadWriteSize, then the authenticated data write/read operation fails and the Result is set to “General failure” (0001h)."
I think this should be checked in the application in userspace because if the application passes a wrong/incorrect payload length, it will error out and have no effect on UFS. In order to add this check in a driver in the kernel, we need to maintain bRPMB_ReadWriteSize in kernel space. Sometimes this is a waste of resources because we don't know if the client will access the RPMB.
I have enabled Advanced RPMB feature in the ufs-utils as an example, will be refered in cover-letter in the next version.
Kind regards, Bean
|  |