From: Mikko Rapeli <mikko.rapeli@linaro.org>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Cc: Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>,
linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
Daniil Lunev <dlunev@google.com>,
Asutosh Das <quic_asutoshd@quicinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mmc: core: Use mrq.sbc in close-ended ffu
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:59:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Ze8OXcCA_BCN2MVE@nuoska> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPDyKFqsyp=isawJKH0Q7Qqxqtkx=gmPZru9NnK-ndV20VRmFA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 11:36:10AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 10:25, Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com> wrote:
> >
> > Field Firmware Update (ffu) may use close-ended or open ended sequence.
> > Each such sequence is comprised of a write commands enclosed between 2
> > switch commands - to and from ffu mode. So for the close-ended case, it
> > will be: cmd6->cmd23-cmd25-cmd6.
> >
> > Some host controllers however, get confused when multi-block rw is sent
> > without sbc, and may generate auto-cmd12 which breaks the ffu sequence.
> > I encountered this issue while testing fwupd (github.com/fwupd/fwupd)
> > on HP Chromebook x2, a qualcomm based QC-7c, code name - strongbad.
> >
> > Instead of a quirk, or hooking the request function of the msm ops,
> > it would be better to fix the ioctl handling and make it use mrq.sbc
> > instead of issuing SET_BLOCK_COUNT separately.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>
>
> Applied for next (to get it tested a bit more) and by adding a stable
> tag, thanks!
This change is causing RPMB breakage in 6.6.13 and also 6.6.20. rockpi4b and
synquacer arm64 boards with u-boot, optee 4.1.0 and firmware TPM (fTPM) fail to
access RPMB via kernel and tee-supplicant 4.1.0.
More details in https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218587
I've tried to identify what exactly is going wrong but failed so far. Reverting
this changes is the only working solution so far. This also triggered a kernel crash
on error path https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218542 which is
now fixed/queued.
If you have any hints how to debug this further or patches to try, I'd be happy to
try those out.
Cheers,
-Mikko
> Kind regards
> Uffe
>
>
> > ---
> >
> > Changelog:
> > v3--v4:
> > check sbc.error as well
> > v2--v3:
> > Adopt Adrian's proposal
> > v1--v2:
> > remove redundant reference of reliable write
> > ---
> > drivers/mmc/core/block.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/block.c b/drivers/mmc/core/block.c
> > index f9a5cffa64b1..892e74e611a0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mmc/core/block.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/block.c
> > @@ -400,6 +400,10 @@ struct mmc_blk_ioc_data {
> > struct mmc_ioc_cmd ic;
> > unsigned char *buf;
> > u64 buf_bytes;
> > + unsigned int flags;
> > +#define MMC_BLK_IOC_DROP BIT(0) /* drop this mrq */
> > +#define MMC_BLK_IOC_SBC BIT(1) /* use mrq.sbc */
> > +
> > struct mmc_rpmb_data *rpmb;
> > };
> >
> > @@ -465,7 +469,7 @@ static int mmc_blk_ioctl_copy_to_user(struct mmc_ioc_cmd __user *ic_ptr,
> > }
> >
> > static int __mmc_blk_ioctl_cmd(struct mmc_card *card, struct mmc_blk_data *md,
> > - struct mmc_blk_ioc_data *idata)
> > + struct mmc_blk_ioc_data **idatas, int i)
> > {
> > struct mmc_command cmd = {}, sbc = {};
> > struct mmc_data data = {};
> > @@ -475,10 +479,18 @@ static int __mmc_blk_ioctl_cmd(struct mmc_card *card, struct mmc_blk_data *md,
> > unsigned int busy_timeout_ms;
> > int err;
> > unsigned int target_part;
> > + struct mmc_blk_ioc_data *idata = idatas[i];
> > + struct mmc_blk_ioc_data *prev_idata = NULL;
> >
> > if (!card || !md || !idata)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > + if (idata->flags & MMC_BLK_IOC_DROP)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + if (idata->flags & MMC_BLK_IOC_SBC)
> > + prev_idata = idatas[i - 1];
> > +
> > /*
> > * The RPMB accesses comes in from the character device, so we
> > * need to target these explicitly. Else we just target the
> > @@ -532,7 +544,7 @@ static int __mmc_blk_ioctl_cmd(struct mmc_card *card, struct mmc_blk_data *md,
> > return err;
> > }
> >
> > - if (idata->rpmb) {
> > + if (idata->rpmb || prev_idata) {
> > sbc.opcode = MMC_SET_BLOCK_COUNT;
> > /*
> > * We don't do any blockcount validation because the max size
> > @@ -540,6 +552,8 @@ static int __mmc_blk_ioctl_cmd(struct mmc_card *card, struct mmc_blk_data *md,
> > * 'Reliable Write' bit here.
> > */
> > sbc.arg = data.blocks | (idata->ic.write_flag & BIT(31));
> > + if (prev_idata)
> > + sbc.arg = prev_idata->ic.arg;
> > sbc.flags = MMC_RSP_R1 | MMC_CMD_AC;
> > mrq.sbc = &sbc;
> > }
> > @@ -557,6 +571,15 @@ static int __mmc_blk_ioctl_cmd(struct mmc_card *card, struct mmc_blk_data *md,
> > mmc_wait_for_req(card->host, &mrq);
> > memcpy(&idata->ic.response, cmd.resp, sizeof(cmd.resp));
> >
> > + if (prev_idata) {
> > + memcpy(&prev_idata->ic.response, sbc.resp, sizeof(sbc.resp));
> > + if (sbc.error) {
> > + dev_err(mmc_dev(card->host), "%s: sbc error %d\n",
> > + __func__, sbc.error);
> > + return sbc.error;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > if (cmd.error) {
> > dev_err(mmc_dev(card->host), "%s: cmd error %d\n",
> > __func__, cmd.error);
> > @@ -1032,6 +1055,20 @@ static inline void mmc_blk_reset_success(struct mmc_blk_data *md, int type)
> > md->reset_done &= ~type;
> > }
> >
> > +static void mmc_blk_check_sbc(struct mmc_queue_req *mq_rq)
> > +{
> > + struct mmc_blk_ioc_data **idata = mq_rq->drv_op_data;
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + for (i = 1; i < mq_rq->ioc_count; i++) {
> > + if (idata[i - 1]->ic.opcode == MMC_SET_BLOCK_COUNT &&
> > + mmc_op_multi(idata[i]->ic.opcode)) {
> > + idata[i - 1]->flags |= MMC_BLK_IOC_DROP;
> > + idata[i]->flags |= MMC_BLK_IOC_SBC;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > /*
> > * The non-block commands come back from the block layer after it queued it and
> > * processed it with all other requests and then they get issued in this
> > @@ -1059,11 +1096,14 @@ static void mmc_blk_issue_drv_op(struct mmc_queue *mq, struct request *req)
> > if (ret)
> > break;
> > }
> > +
> > + mmc_blk_check_sbc(mq_rq);
> > +
> > fallthrough;
> > case MMC_DRV_OP_IOCTL_RPMB:
> > idata = mq_rq->drv_op_data;
> > for (i = 0, ret = 0; i < mq_rq->ioc_count; i++) {
> > - ret = __mmc_blk_ioctl_cmd(card, md, idata[i]);
> > + ret = __mmc_blk_ioctl_cmd(card, md, idata, i);
> > if (ret)
> > break;
> > }
> > --
> > 2.42.0
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-11 14:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-29 9:25 [PATCH v4] mmc: core: Use mrq.sbc in close-ended ffu Avri Altman
2023-11-29 13:31 ` Adrian Hunter
2023-11-30 10:36 ` Ulf Hansson
2024-03-11 13:59 ` Mikko Rapeli [this message]
2024-03-11 14:55 ` Avri Altman
2024-03-11 15:08 ` Mikko Rapeli
2024-03-11 15:19 ` Jens Wiklander
2024-03-11 15:41 ` Mikko Rapeli
2024-03-11 19:25 ` Avri Altman
2024-03-12 8:01 ` Jens Wiklander
2024-03-13 11:46 ` Mikko Rapeli
2024-03-13 12:44 ` Mikko Rapeli
2024-03-13 12:50 ` Avri Altman
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=Ze8OXcCA_BCN2MVE@nuoska \
--to=mikko.rapeli@linaro.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=avri.altman@wdc.com \
--cc=dlunev@google.com \
--cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=quic_asutoshd@quicinc.com \
--cc=ulf.hansson@linaro.org \
/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).