Re: [PATCH] platform/chrome: cros_ec_typec: Handle NULL EC pointer during probe.
Hi.
On 1/5/20 5:22, Daniil Lunev wrote:
> Hi Prashant,
> I do not think it is present. Thinking about it, I do not think it
> shall be an issue on any released device as it will have either a
> firmware which wouldn't even trigger the typec probe or the one after
> the hierarchy fix. Likely I just got a firmware which was somewhere in
> between those two (As I did some unrelated FW testing). So, yes,
> probably putting this upstream is not necessary, though IMO more
> sanity checks - especially on non-critical run-once paths - are always
> better than having a kernel panic lingering around the corner, not
> like I am insisting on pushing the patch though with all the info, up
> to Enric.
I'd prefer to not push the patch. If at some point this is starts of being
possible we will catch soon.
Thank you,
Enric
> Cheers,
> Daniil
>
> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:56 AM Prashant Malani wrote:
>>
>> Hi Daniil,
>>
>> On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 10:15:18AM +1000, Daniil Lunev wrote:
>>> On the official revision of coreboot for hatch it doesn't even try to
>>> load Type C. However it gives some warning messages from
>>> cros-usbpd-notify-acpi about EC, So I wonder why the check of the same
>>> type is not appropriate in the typec driver?
>>
>> I think the difference is that GOOG0003 is already present on shipped /
>> official versions of coreboot (so not having that check can cause
>> existing release images/devices to crash), whereas for GOOG0014 that is /
>> isn't the case.
>>
>> Is GOOG0014 present on the official release coreboot image for this
>> device? If so, what's its path (/sys/bus/acpi/devices//path) ?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> -Prashant
>>>
>>> ../chrome/cros_usbpd_notify.c
>>>
>>> /* Get the EC device pointer needed to talk to the EC. */
>>> ec_dev = dev_get_drvdata(dev->parent);
>>> if (!ec_dev) {
>>> /*
>>> * We continue even for older devices which don't have the
>>> * correct device heirarchy, namely, GOOG0003 is a child
>>> * of GOOG0004.
>>> */
>>> dev_warn(dev, "Couldn't get Chrome EC device pointer.\n");
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> # dmesg
>>> ...
>>> [8.513351] cros-ec-spi spi-PRP0001:02: EC failed to respond in time
>>> [8.722072] cros-ec-spi spi-PRP0001:02: EC failed to respond in time
>>> [8.729271] cros-ec-spi spi-PRP0001:02: Cannot identify the EC: error
>>> -110
>>> [8.736966] cros-ec-spi spi-PRP0001:02: cannot register EC,
>>> fallback to spidev
>>> [8.767017] cros_ec_lpcs GOOG0004:00: Chrome EC device registered
>>> [8.807537] cros-usbpd-notify-acpi GOOG0003:00: Couldn't get Chrome
>>> EC device pointer.
>>> ...
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 2:17 AM Prashant Malani wrote:
Hi Enric,
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 8:26 AM Enric Balletbo i Serra
wrote:
>
> Hi Prashant,
>
> On 30/4/20 2:43, Prashant Malani wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 5:38 PM Daniil Lunev wrote:
>>>
>>> [to make it appear on the mailing list as I didn't realize I was in
>>> hypertext sending mode]
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:11 AM Daniil Lunev
>>> wrote:
Hi Enric.
I encountered the issue on a Hatch device when trying running 5.4
kernel on that. After talking to Prashant it seems that any device
with coreboot built before a certain point (a particular fix for
device hierarchy in ACPI tables of Chrome devices which happened in
mid-April) will not be able to correctly initialize the driver and
will get a kernel panic trying to do so.
>>
>> A clarifying detail here: This should not be seen in any current
>> *production* device. No prod device firmware will carry the erroneous
>> ACPI device entry.
>>
>
> Thanks for the clarification. Then, I don't think we need to upstream
> this. This
> kind of "defensive-programming" it's not something that should matter to
> upstream.
Actually, on second thought, I am not 100% sure about this:
Daniil, is the erroneous ACPI device on a *production* firmware for
this device (I'm not sure about the vintage of that device's BIOS)?
My apologies for the confusion, Enric and Daniil; but would be good to
get clarification from Daniil.
Best regards,
>
> Thanks,
> Enric
>
>
Thanks,
Daniil
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 7:58 AM Enric Balletbo i Serra
wrote:
>
> Hi Daniil,
>
> Thank you for the patch.
>
> On 28/4/20 3:02, Daniil Lunev wrote:
>> Missing EC in device hierarchy causes NULL pointer to be returned to
>> the
>> probe function which leads to NULL pointer dereference when trying to
>> send a command to the EC. This can be the case if the device is
>> missing
>> or incorrectly configured in the firmware blob. Even if the situation
>
> There is any production device
Re: [PATCH] platform/chrome: cros_ec_typec: Handle NULL EC pointer during probe.
Hi Prashant,
I do not think it is present. Thinking about it, I do not think it
shall be an issue on any released device as it will have either a
firmware which wouldn't even trigger the typec probe or the one after
the hierarchy fix. Likely I just got a firmware which was somewhere in
between those two (As I did some unrelated FW testing). So, yes,
probably putting this upstream is not necessary, though IMO more
sanity checks - especially on non-critical run-once paths - are always
better than having a kernel panic lingering around the corner, not
like I am insisting on pushing the patch though with all the info, up
to Enric.
Cheers,
Daniil
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:56 AM Prashant Malani wrote:
>
> Hi Daniil,
>
> On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 10:15:18AM +1000, Daniil Lunev wrote:
> > On the official revision of coreboot for hatch it doesn't even try to
> > load Type C. However it gives some warning messages from
> > cros-usbpd-notify-acpi about EC, So I wonder why the check of the same
> > type is not appropriate in the typec driver?
>
> I think the difference is that GOOG0003 is already present on shipped /
> official versions of coreboot (so not having that check can cause
> existing release images/devices to crash), whereas for GOOG0014 that is /
> isn't the case.
>
> Is GOOG0014 present on the official release coreboot image for this
> device? If so, what's its path (/sys/bus/acpi/devices//path) ?
>
> Best regards,
>
> -Prashant
> >
> > ../chrome/cros_usbpd_notify.c
> >
> > /* Get the EC device pointer needed to talk to the EC. */
> > ec_dev = dev_get_drvdata(dev->parent);
> > if (!ec_dev) {
> > /*
> > * We continue even for older devices which don't have the
> > * correct device heirarchy, namely, GOOG0003 is a child
> > * of GOOG0004.
> > */
> > dev_warn(dev, "Couldn't get Chrome EC device pointer.\n");
> > }
> >
> >
> > # dmesg
> > ...
> > [8.513351] cros-ec-spi spi-PRP0001:02: EC failed to respond in time
> > [8.722072] cros-ec-spi spi-PRP0001:02: EC failed to respond in time
> > [8.729271] cros-ec-spi spi-PRP0001:02: Cannot identify the EC: error
> > -110
> > [8.736966] cros-ec-spi spi-PRP0001:02: cannot register EC,
> > fallback to spidev
> > [8.767017] cros_ec_lpcs GOOG0004:00: Chrome EC device registered
> > [8.807537] cros-usbpd-notify-acpi GOOG0003:00: Couldn't get Chrome
> > EC device pointer.
> > ...
> >
> > On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 2:17 AM Prashant Malani wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Enric,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 8:26 AM Enric Balletbo i Serra
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Prashant,
> > > >
> > > > On 30/4/20 2:43, Prashant Malani wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 5:38 PM Daniil Lunev
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [to make it appear on the mailing list as I didn't realize I was in
> > > > >> hypertext sending mode]
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:11 AM Daniil Lunev
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Hi Enric.
> > > > >>> I encountered the issue on a Hatch device when trying running 5.4
> > > > >>> kernel on that. After talking to Prashant it seems that any device
> > > > >>> with coreboot built before a certain point (a particular fix for
> > > > >>> device hierarchy in ACPI tables of Chrome devices which happened in
> > > > >>> mid-April) will not be able to correctly initialize the driver and
> > > > >>> will get a kernel panic trying to do so.
> > > > >
> > > > > A clarifying detail here: This should not be seen in any current
> > > > > *production* device. No prod device firmware will carry the erroneous
> > > > > ACPI device entry.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the clarification. Then, I don't think we need to upstream
> > > > this. This
> > > > kind of "defensive-programming" it's not something that should matter
> > > > to upstream.
> > >
> > > Actually, on second thought, I am not 100% sure about this:
> > > Daniil, is the erroneous ACPI device on a *production* firmware for
> > > this device (I'm not sure about the vintage of that device's BIOS)?
> > >
> > > My apologies for the confusion, Enric and Daniil; but would be good to
> > > get clarification from Daniil.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Enric
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > >>> Daniil
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 7:58 AM Enric Balletbo i Serra
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Daniil,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for the patch.
> > > >
> > > > On 28/4/20 3:02, Daniil Lunev wrote:
> > > > > Missing EC in device hierarchy causes NULL pointer to be returned
> > > > > to the
> > > > > probe function which leads to NULL pointer dereference when
> > > > > trying to
> > > > > send a command to the EC. This can be the case if the device is
> > > > > missing
> > > > > or incorrectly configured in the firmware blob. Even if the
> > > > > situation
> > > >
> > > > There is any production device with a buggy
Re: [PATCH] platform/chrome: cros_ec_typec: Handle NULL EC pointer during probe.
Hi Daniil,
On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 10:15:18AM +1000, Daniil Lunev wrote:
> On the official revision of coreboot for hatch it doesn't even try to
> load Type C. However it gives some warning messages from
> cros-usbpd-notify-acpi about EC, So I wonder why the check of the same
> type is not appropriate in the typec driver?
I think the difference is that GOOG0003 is already present on shipped /
official versions of coreboot (so not having that check can cause
existing release images/devices to crash), whereas for GOOG0014 that is / isn't
the case.
Is GOOG0014 present on the official release coreboot image for this
device? If so, what's its path (/sys/bus/acpi/devices//path) ?
Best regards,
-Prashant
>
> ../chrome/cros_usbpd_notify.c
>
> /* Get the EC device pointer needed to talk to the EC. */
> ec_dev = dev_get_drvdata(dev->parent);
> if (!ec_dev) {
> /*
> * We continue even for older devices which don't have the
> * correct device heirarchy, namely, GOOG0003 is a child
> * of GOOG0004.
> */
> dev_warn(dev, "Couldn't get Chrome EC device pointer.\n");
> }
>
>
> # dmesg
> ...
> [8.513351] cros-ec-spi spi-PRP0001:02: EC failed to respond in time
> [8.722072] cros-ec-spi spi-PRP0001:02: EC failed to respond in time
> [8.729271] cros-ec-spi spi-PRP0001:02: Cannot identify the EC: error -110
> [8.736966] cros-ec-spi spi-PRP0001:02: cannot register EC,
> fallback to spidev
> [8.767017] cros_ec_lpcs GOOG0004:00: Chrome EC device registered
> [8.807537] cros-usbpd-notify-acpi GOOG0003:00: Couldn't get Chrome
> EC device pointer.
> ...
>
> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 2:17 AM Prashant Malani wrote:
> >
> > Hi Enric,
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 8:26 AM Enric Balletbo i Serra
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Prashant,
> > >
> > > On 30/4/20 2:43, Prashant Malani wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 5:38 PM Daniil Lunev
> > > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> [to make it appear on the mailing list as I didn't realize I was in
> > > >> hypertext sending mode]
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:11 AM Daniil Lunev
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Hi Enric.
> > > >>> I encountered the issue on a Hatch device when trying running 5.4
> > > >>> kernel on that. After talking to Prashant it seems that any device
> > > >>> with coreboot built before a certain point (a particular fix for
> > > >>> device hierarchy in ACPI tables of Chrome devices which happened in
> > > >>> mid-April) will not be able to correctly initialize the driver and
> > > >>> will get a kernel panic trying to do so.
> > > >
> > > > A clarifying detail here: This should not be seen in any current
> > > > *production* device. No prod device firmware will carry the erroneous
> > > > ACPI device entry.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for the clarification. Then, I don't think we need to upstream
> > > this. This
> > > kind of "defensive-programming" it's not something that should matter to
> > > upstream.
> >
> > Actually, on second thought, I am not 100% sure about this:
> > Daniil, is the erroneous ACPI device on a *production* firmware for
> > this device (I'm not sure about the vintage of that device's BIOS)?
> >
> > My apologies for the confusion, Enric and Daniil; but would be good to
> > get clarification from Daniil.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Enric
> > >
> > >
> > > >>> Thanks,
> > > >>> Daniil
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 7:58 AM Enric Balletbo i Serra
> > > >>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Daniil,
> > >
> > > Thank you for the patch.
> > >
> > > On 28/4/20 3:02, Daniil Lunev wrote:
> > > > Missing EC in device hierarchy causes NULL pointer to be returned
> > > > to the
> > > > probe function which leads to NULL pointer dereference when trying
> > > > to
> > > > send a command to the EC. This can be the case if the device is
> > > > missing
> > > > or incorrectly configured in the firmware blob. Even if the
> > > > situation
> > >
> > > There is any production device with a buggy firmware outside? Or
> > > this is just
> > > for defensive programming while developing the firmware? Which
> > > device is
> > > affected for this issue?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Enric
> > >
> > > > occures, the driver shall not cause a kernel panic as the condition
> > > > is
> > > > not critical for the system functions.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Daniil Lunev
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c | 5 +
> > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c
> > > > b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c
> > > > index 874269c07073..30d99c930445 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c
> > > > @@ -301,6 +301,11 @@ static int cros_typec_probe(struct
Re: [PATCH] platform/chrome: cros_ec_typec: Handle NULL EC pointer during probe.
On the official revision of coreboot for hatch it doesn't even try to
load Type C. However it gives some warning messages from
cros-usbpd-notify-acpi about EC, So I wonder why the check of the same
type is not appropriate in the typec driver?
../chrome/cros_usbpd_notify.c
/* Get the EC device pointer needed to talk to the EC. */
ec_dev = dev_get_drvdata(dev->parent);
if (!ec_dev) {
/*
* We continue even for older devices which don't have the
* correct device heirarchy, namely, GOOG0003 is a child
* of GOOG0004.
*/
dev_warn(dev, "Couldn't get Chrome EC device pointer.\n");
}
# dmesg
...
[8.513351] cros-ec-spi spi-PRP0001:02: EC failed to respond in time
[8.722072] cros-ec-spi spi-PRP0001:02: EC failed to respond in time
[8.729271] cros-ec-spi spi-PRP0001:02: Cannot identify the EC: error -110
[8.736966] cros-ec-spi spi-PRP0001:02: cannot register EC,
fallback to spidev
[8.767017] cros_ec_lpcs GOOG0004:00: Chrome EC device registered
[8.807537] cros-usbpd-notify-acpi GOOG0003:00: Couldn't get Chrome
EC device pointer.
...
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 2:17 AM Prashant Malani wrote:
>
> Hi Enric,
>
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 8:26 AM Enric Balletbo i Serra
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Prashant,
> >
> > On 30/4/20 2:43, Prashant Malani wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 5:38 PM Daniil Lunev wrote:
> > >>
> > >> [to make it appear on the mailing list as I didn't realize I was in
> > >> hypertext sending mode]
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:11 AM Daniil Lunev
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi Enric.
> > >>> I encountered the issue on a Hatch device when trying running 5.4
> > >>> kernel on that. After talking to Prashant it seems that any device with
> > >>> coreboot built before a certain point (a particular fix for device
> > >>> hierarchy in ACPI tables of Chrome devices which happened in mid-April)
> > >>> will not be able to correctly initialize the driver and will get a
> > >>> kernel panic trying to do so.
> > >
> > > A clarifying detail here: This should not be seen in any current
> > > *production* device. No prod device firmware will carry the erroneous
> > > ACPI device entry.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for the clarification. Then, I don't think we need to upstream this.
> > This
> > kind of "defensive-programming" it's not something that should matter to
> > upstream.
>
> Actually, on second thought, I am not 100% sure about this:
> Daniil, is the erroneous ACPI device on a *production* firmware for
> this device (I'm not sure about the vintage of that device's BIOS)?
>
> My apologies for the confusion, Enric and Daniil; but would be good to
> get clarification from Daniil.
>
> Best regards,
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Enric
> >
> >
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Daniil
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 7:58 AM Enric Balletbo i Serra
> > >>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Daniil,
> >
> > Thank you for the patch.
> >
> > On 28/4/20 3:02, Daniil Lunev wrote:
> > > Missing EC in device hierarchy causes NULL pointer to be returned to
> > > the
> > > probe function which leads to NULL pointer dereference when trying to
> > > send a command to the EC. This can be the case if the device is
> > > missing
> > > or incorrectly configured in the firmware blob. Even if the situation
> >
> > There is any production device with a buggy firmware outside? Or this
> > is just
> > for defensive programming while developing the firmware? Which device
> > is
> > affected for this issue?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Enric
> >
> > > occures, the driver shall not cause a kernel panic as the condition is
> > > not critical for the system functions.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniil Lunev
> > > ---
> > >
> > > drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c | 5 +
> > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c
> > > b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c
> > > index 874269c07073..30d99c930445 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c
> > > @@ -301,6 +301,11 @@ static int cros_typec_probe(struct
> > > platform_device *pdev)
> > >
> > > typec->dev = dev;
> > > typec->ec = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
> > > + if (!typec->ec) {
> > > + dev_err(dev, "Failed to get Cros EC data\n");
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, typec);
> > >
> > > ret = cros_typec_get_cmd_version(typec);
> > >
Re: [PATCH] platform/chrome: cros_ec_typec: Handle NULL EC pointer during probe.
Hi Enric,
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 8:26 AM Enric Balletbo i Serra
wrote:
>
> Hi Prashant,
>
> On 30/4/20 2:43, Prashant Malani wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 5:38 PM Daniil Lunev wrote:
> >>
> >> [to make it appear on the mailing list as I didn't realize I was in
> >> hypertext sending mode]
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:11 AM Daniil Lunev wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Enric.
> >>> I encountered the issue on a Hatch device when trying running 5.4 kernel
> >>> on that. After talking to Prashant it seems that any device with coreboot
> >>> built before a certain point (a particular fix for device hierarchy in
> >>> ACPI tables of Chrome devices which happened in mid-April) will not be
> >>> able to correctly initialize the driver and will get a kernel panic
> >>> trying to do so.
> >
> > A clarifying detail here: This should not be seen in any current
> > *production* device. No prod device firmware will carry the erroneous
> > ACPI device entry.
> >
>
> Thanks for the clarification. Then, I don't think we need to upstream this.
> This
> kind of "defensive-programming" it's not something that should matter to
> upstream.
Actually, on second thought, I am not 100% sure about this:
Daniil, is the erroneous ACPI device on a *production* firmware for
this device (I'm not sure about the vintage of that device's BIOS)?
My apologies for the confusion, Enric and Daniil; but would be good to
get clarification from Daniil.
Best regards,
>
> Thanks,
> Enric
>
>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Daniil
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 7:58 AM Enric Balletbo i Serra
> >>> wrote:
>
> Hi Daniil,
>
> Thank you for the patch.
>
> On 28/4/20 3:02, Daniil Lunev wrote:
> > Missing EC in device hierarchy causes NULL pointer to be returned to the
> > probe function which leads to NULL pointer dereference when trying to
> > send a command to the EC. This can be the case if the device is missing
> > or incorrectly configured in the firmware blob. Even if the situation
>
> There is any production device with a buggy firmware outside? Or this is
> just
> for defensive programming while developing the firmware? Which device is
> affected for this issue?
>
> Thanks,
> Enric
>
> > occures, the driver shall not cause a kernel panic as the condition is
> > not critical for the system functions.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniil Lunev
> > ---
> >
> > drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c | 5 +
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c
> > b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c
> > index 874269c07073..30d99c930445 100644
> > --- a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c
> > +++ b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c
> > @@ -301,6 +301,11 @@ static int cros_typec_probe(struct platform_device
> > *pdev)
> >
> > typec->dev = dev;
> > typec->ec = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
> > + if (!typec->ec) {
> > + dev_err(dev, "Failed to get Cros EC data\n");
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, typec);
> >
> > ret = cros_typec_get_cmd_version(typec);
> >
Re: [PATCH] platform/chrome: cros_ec_typec: Handle NULL EC pointer during probe.
Hi Prashant,
On 30/4/20 2:43, Prashant Malani wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 5:38 PM Daniil Lunev wrote:
>>
>> [to make it appear on the mailing list as I didn't realize I was in
>> hypertext sending mode]
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:11 AM Daniil Lunev wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Enric.
>>> I encountered the issue on a Hatch device when trying running 5.4 kernel on
>>> that. After talking to Prashant it seems that any device with coreboot
>>> built before a certain point (a particular fix for device hierarchy in ACPI
>>> tables of Chrome devices which happened in mid-April) will not be able to
>>> correctly initialize the driver and will get a kernel panic trying to do so.
>
> A clarifying detail here: This should not be seen in any current
> *production* device. No prod device firmware will carry the erroneous
> ACPI device entry.
>
Thanks for the clarification. Then, I don't think we need to upstream this. This
kind of "defensive-programming" it's not something that should matter to
upstream.
Thanks,
Enric
>>> Thanks,
>>> Daniil
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 7:58 AM Enric Balletbo i Serra
>>> wrote:
Hi Daniil,
Thank you for the patch.
On 28/4/20 3:02, Daniil Lunev wrote:
> Missing EC in device hierarchy causes NULL pointer to be returned to the
> probe function which leads to NULL pointer dereference when trying to
> send a command to the EC. This can be the case if the device is missing
> or incorrectly configured in the firmware blob. Even if the situation
There is any production device with a buggy firmware outside? Or this is
just
for defensive programming while developing the firmware? Which device is
affected for this issue?
Thanks,
Enric
> occures, the driver shall not cause a kernel panic as the condition is
> not critical for the system functions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniil Lunev
> ---
>
> drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c | 5 +
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c
> b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c
> index 874269c07073..30d99c930445 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c
> @@ -301,6 +301,11 @@ static int cros_typec_probe(struct platform_device
> *pdev)
>
> typec->dev = dev;
> typec->ec = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
> + if (!typec->ec) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to get Cros EC data\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, typec);
>
> ret = cros_typec_get_cmd_version(typec);
>
Re: [PATCH] platform/chrome: cros_ec_typec: Handle NULL EC pointer during probe.
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 5:38 PM Daniil Lunev wrote:
>
> [to make it appear on the mailing list as I didn't realize I was in
> hypertext sending mode]
>
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:11 AM Daniil Lunev wrote:
> >
> > Hi Enric.
> > I encountered the issue on a Hatch device when trying running 5.4 kernel on
> > that. After talking to Prashant it seems that any device with coreboot
> > built before a certain point (a particular fix for device hierarchy in ACPI
> > tables of Chrome devices which happened in mid-April) will not be able to
> > correctly initialize the driver and will get a kernel panic trying to do so.
A clarifying detail here: This should not be seen in any current
*production* device. No prod device firmware will carry the erroneous
ACPI device entry.
> > Thanks,
> > Daniil
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 7:58 AM Enric Balletbo i Serra
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Daniil,
> >>
> >> Thank you for the patch.
> >>
> >> On 28/4/20 3:02, Daniil Lunev wrote:
> >> > Missing EC in device hierarchy causes NULL pointer to be returned to the
> >> > probe function which leads to NULL pointer dereference when trying to
> >> > send a command to the EC. This can be the case if the device is missing
> >> > or incorrectly configured in the firmware blob. Even if the situation
> >>
> >> There is any production device with a buggy firmware outside? Or this is
> >> just
> >> for defensive programming while developing the firmware? Which device is
> >> affected for this issue?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Enric
> >>
> >> > occures, the driver shall not cause a kernel panic as the condition is
> >> > not critical for the system functions.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Daniil Lunev
> >> > ---
> >> >
> >> > drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c | 5 +
> >> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c
> >> > b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c
> >> > index 874269c07073..30d99c930445 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c
> >> > @@ -301,6 +301,11 @@ static int cros_typec_probe(struct platform_device
> >> > *pdev)
> >> >
> >> > typec->dev = dev;
> >> > typec->ec = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
> >> > + if (!typec->ec) {
> >> > + dev_err(dev, "Failed to get Cros EC data\n");
> >> > + return -EINVAL;
> >> > + }
> >> > +
> >> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, typec);
> >> >
> >> > ret = cros_typec_get_cmd_version(typec);
> >> >
Re: [PATCH] platform/chrome: cros_ec_typec: Handle NULL EC pointer during probe.
[to make it appear on the mailing list as I didn't realize I was in
hypertext sending mode]
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:11 AM Daniil Lunev wrote:
>
> Hi Enric.
> I encountered the issue on a Hatch device when trying running 5.4 kernel on
> that. After talking to Prashant it seems that any device with coreboot built
> before a certain point (a particular fix for device hierarchy in ACPI tables
> of Chrome devices which happened in mid-April) will not be able to correctly
> initialize the driver and will get a kernel panic trying to do so.
> Thanks,
> Daniil
>
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 7:58 AM Enric Balletbo i Serra
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Daniil,
>>
>> Thank you for the patch.
>>
>> On 28/4/20 3:02, Daniil Lunev wrote:
>> > Missing EC in device hierarchy causes NULL pointer to be returned to the
>> > probe function which leads to NULL pointer dereference when trying to
>> > send a command to the EC. This can be the case if the device is missing
>> > or incorrectly configured in the firmware blob. Even if the situation
>>
>> There is any production device with a buggy firmware outside? Or this is just
>> for defensive programming while developing the firmware? Which device is
>> affected for this issue?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Enric
>>
>> > occures, the driver shall not cause a kernel panic as the condition is
>> > not critical for the system functions.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Daniil Lunev
>> > ---
>> >
>> > drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c | 5 +
>> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c
>> > b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c
>> > index 874269c07073..30d99c930445 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c
>> > @@ -301,6 +301,11 @@ static int cros_typec_probe(struct platform_device
>> > *pdev)
>> >
>> > typec->dev = dev;
>> > typec->ec = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
>> > + if (!typec->ec) {
>> > + dev_err(dev, "Failed to get Cros EC data\n");
>> > + return -EINVAL;
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, typec);
>> >
>> > ret = cros_typec_get_cmd_version(typec);
>> >
Re: [PATCH] platform/chrome: cros_ec_typec: Handle NULL EC pointer during probe.
Hi Daniil,
Thank you for the patch.
On 28/4/20 3:02, Daniil Lunev wrote:
> Missing EC in device hierarchy causes NULL pointer to be returned to the
> probe function which leads to NULL pointer dereference when trying to
> send a command to the EC. This can be the case if the device is missing
> or incorrectly configured in the firmware blob. Even if the situation
There is any production device with a buggy firmware outside? Or this is just
for defensive programming while developing the firmware? Which device is
affected for this issue?
Thanks,
Enric
> occures, the driver shall not cause a kernel panic as the condition is
> not critical for the system functions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniil Lunev
> ---
>
> drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c | 5 +
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c
> b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c
> index 874269c07073..30d99c930445 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c
> @@ -301,6 +301,11 @@ static int cros_typec_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> typec->dev = dev;
> typec->ec = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
> + if (!typec->ec) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to get Cros EC data\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, typec);
>
> ret = cros_typec_get_cmd_version(typec);
>
