Re: [PATCH] tpm/tpm_crb: Avoid unaligned reads in crb_recv():

From: Jarkko Sakkinen
Date: Tue Feb 05 2019 - 05:47:58 EST


On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 12:44:06PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 12:17:43PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Jarkko Sakkinen
> > > Sent: 01 February 2019 11:20
> > > The current approach to read first 6 bytes from the response and then tail
> > > of the response, can cause the 2nd memcpy_fromio() to do an unaligned read
> > > (e.g. read 32-bit word from address aligned to a 16-bits), depending on how
> > > memcpy_fromio() is implemented. If this happens, the read will fail and the
> > > memory controller will fill the read with 1's.
> >
> > To my mind memcpy_to/fromio() should only be used on IO addresses that are
> > adequately like memory, and should be implemented in a way that that won't
> > generate invalid bus cycles.
> > Also memcpy_fromio() should also be allowed to do 'aligned' accesses that
> > go beyond the ends of the required memory area.
> >
> > ...
> > >
> > > - memcpy_fromio(buf, priv->rsp, 6);
> > > + memcpy_fromio(buf, priv->rsp, 8);
> > > expected = be32_to_cpup((__be32 *) &buf[2]);
> > > - if (expected > count || expected < 6)
> > > + if (expected > count || expected < 8)
> > > return -EIO;
> > >
> > > - memcpy_fromio(&buf[6], &priv->rsp[6], expected - 6);
> > > + memcpy_fromio(&buf[8], &priv->rsp[8], expected - 8);
> >
> > Why not just use readl() or readq() ?
> >
> > Bound to generate better code.
>
> For the first read can be done. The second read is of variable
> length.

Neither can be done to the first one, because readq() does
le64_to_cpu(). Shoud not do any conversions, only raw read.
So I'll just stick it to what we have.

/jarkko