Re: [PATCH v10 3/4] mtd: rawnand: Add support for secure regions in NAND memory

2021-04-02 Thread Manivannan Sadhasivam
On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 10:51:54AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 21:46:22 +0530
> Manivannan Sadhasivam  wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 05:54:21PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > On Thu,  1 Apr 2021 20:49:54 +0530
> > > Manivannan Sadhasivam  wrote:
> > >   
> > > > @@ -565,6 +608,11 @@ static int nand_block_isreserved(struct mtd_info 
> > > > *mtd, loff_t ofs)
> > > >  
> > > > if (!chip->bbt)
> > > > return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > +   /* Check if the region is secured */
> > > > +   if (nand_region_is_secured(chip, ofs, 0))
> > > > +   return -EIO;  
> > > 
> > > That would is still wrong, you should never pass a 0 size to
> > > nand_region_is_secured().
> > >   
> > 
> > Size doesn't matter here, that's why I passed 0. Maybe 1 would be
> > appropriate?
> 
> You're checking if a block is reserved, so I think passing the
> eraseblock size would make more sense, but I actually don't understand
> why you need to check if the region is secure here (looks like
> nand_block_isreserved() does not access the flash).
> 

Ah yes indeed, brain fade...

Thanks,
Mani


Re: [PATCH v10 3/4] mtd: rawnand: Add support for secure regions in NAND memory

2021-04-02 Thread Boris Brezillon
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 21:46:22 +0530
Manivannan Sadhasivam  wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 05:54:21PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Thu,  1 Apr 2021 20:49:54 +0530
> > Manivannan Sadhasivam  wrote:
> >   
> > > @@ -565,6 +608,11 @@ static int nand_block_isreserved(struct mtd_info 
> > > *mtd, loff_t ofs)
> > >  
> > >   if (!chip->bbt)
> > >   return 0;
> > > +
> > > + /* Check if the region is secured */
> > > + if (nand_region_is_secured(chip, ofs, 0))
> > > + return -EIO;  
> > 
> > That would is still wrong, you should never pass a 0 size to
> > nand_region_is_secured().
> >   
> 
> Size doesn't matter here, that's why I passed 0. Maybe 1 would be
> appropriate?

You're checking if a block is reserved, so I think passing the
eraseblock size would make more sense, but I actually don't understand
why you need to check if the region is secure here (looks like
nand_block_isreserved() does not access the flash).



Re: [PATCH v10 3/4] mtd: rawnand: Add support for secure regions in NAND memory

2021-04-01 Thread Manivannan Sadhasivam
On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 05:54:21PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Thu,  1 Apr 2021 20:49:54 +0530
> Manivannan Sadhasivam  wrote:
> 
> > @@ -565,6 +608,11 @@ static int nand_block_isreserved(struct mtd_info *mtd, 
> > loff_t ofs)
> >  
> > if (!chip->bbt)
> > return 0;
> > +
> > +   /* Check if the region is secured */
> > +   if (nand_region_is_secured(chip, ofs, 0))
> > +   return -EIO;
> 
> That would is still wrong, you should never pass a 0 size to
> nand_region_is_secured().
> 

Size doesn't matter here, that's why I passed 0. Maybe 1 would be
appropriate?

Thanks,
Mani



Re: [PATCH v10 3/4] mtd: rawnand: Add support for secure regions in NAND memory

2021-04-01 Thread Boris Brezillon
On Thu,  1 Apr 2021 20:49:54 +0530
Manivannan Sadhasivam  wrote:

> @@ -565,6 +608,11 @@ static int nand_block_isreserved(struct mtd_info *mtd, 
> loff_t ofs)
>  
>   if (!chip->bbt)
>   return 0;
> +
> + /* Check if the region is secured */
> + if (nand_region_is_secured(chip, ofs, 0))
> + return -EIO;

That would is still wrong, you should never pass a 0 size to
nand_region_is_secured().



[PATCH v10 3/4] mtd: rawnand: Add support for secure regions in NAND memory

2021-04-01 Thread Manivannan Sadhasivam
On a typical end product, a vendor may choose to secure some regions in
the NAND memory which are supposed to stay intact between FW upgrades.
The access to those regions will be blocked by a secure element like
Trustzone. So the normal world software like Linux kernel should not
touch these regions (including reading).

The regions are declared using a NAND chip DT property,
"secure-regions". So let's make use of this property in the raw NAND
core and skip access to the secure regions present in a system.

Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam 
---
 drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c | 107 ++-
 include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h  |  14 
 2 files changed, 120 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
index c33fa1b1847f..c216d3eca915 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
@@ -278,11 +278,50 @@ static int nand_block_bad(struct nand_chip *chip, loff_t 
ofs)
return 0;
 }
 
+/**
+ * nand_region_is_secured() - Check if the region is secured
+ * @chip: NAND chip object
+ * @offset: Offset of the region to check
+ * @size: Size of the region to check
+ *
+ * Checks if the region is secured by comparing the offset and size with the
+ * list of secure regions obtained from DT. Returns true if the region is
+ * secured else false.
+ */
+static bool nand_region_is_secured(struct nand_chip *chip, loff_t offset, u64 
size)
+{
+   int i;
+
+   /* Skip touching the secure regions if present */
+   for (i = 0; i < chip->nr_secure_regions; i++) {
+   const struct nand_secure_region *region = 
>secure_regions[i];
+
+   if (offset + size <= region->offset ||
+   offset >= region->offset + region->size)
+   continue;
+
+   pr_debug("%s: Region 0x%llx - 0x%llx is secured!",
+__func__, offset, offset + size);
+
+   return true;
+   }
+
+   return false;
+}
+
 static int nand_isbad_bbm(struct nand_chip *chip, loff_t ofs)
 {
+   struct mtd_info *mtd = nand_to_mtd(chip);
+   int last_page = ((mtd->erasesize - mtd->writesize) >>
+chip->page_shift) & chip->pagemask;
+
if (chip->options & NAND_NO_BBM_QUIRK)
return 0;
 
+   /* Check if the region is secured */
+   if (nand_region_is_secured(chip, ofs, last_page))
+   return -EIO;
+
if (chip->legacy.block_bad)
return chip->legacy.block_bad(chip, ofs);
 
@@ -397,6 +436,10 @@ static int nand_do_write_oob(struct nand_chip *chip, 
loff_t to,
return -EINVAL;
}
 
+   /* Check if the region is secured */
+   if (nand_region_is_secured(chip, to, ops->ooblen))
+   return -EIO;
+
chipnr = (int)(to >> chip->chip_shift);
 
/*
@@ -565,6 +608,11 @@ static int nand_block_isreserved(struct mtd_info *mtd, 
loff_t ofs)
 
if (!chip->bbt)
return 0;
+
+   /* Check if the region is secured */
+   if (nand_region_is_secured(chip, ofs, 0))
+   return -EIO;
+
/* Return info from the table */
return nand_isreserved_bbt(chip, ofs);
 }
@@ -3127,6 +3175,10 @@ static int nand_do_read_ops(struct nand_chip *chip, 
loff_t from,
int retry_mode = 0;
bool ecc_fail = false;
 
+   /* Check if the region is secured */
+   if (nand_region_is_secured(chip, from, readlen))
+   return -EIO;
+
chipnr = (int)(from >> chip->chip_shift);
nand_select_target(chip, chipnr);
 
@@ -3458,6 +3510,10 @@ static int nand_do_read_oob(struct nand_chip *chip, 
loff_t from,
pr_debug("%s: from = 0x%08Lx, len = %i\n",
__func__, (unsigned long long)from, readlen);
 
+   /* Check if the region is secured */
+   if (nand_region_is_secured(chip, from, readlen))
+   return -EIO;
+
stats = mtd->ecc_stats;
 
len = mtd_oobavail(mtd, ops);
@@ -3979,6 +4035,10 @@ static int nand_do_write_ops(struct nand_chip *chip, 
loff_t to,
return -EINVAL;
}
 
+   /* Check if the region is secured */
+   if (nand_region_is_secured(chip, to, writelen))
+   return -EIO;
+
column = to & (mtd->writesize - 1);
 
chipnr = (int)(to >> chip->chip_shift);
@@ -4180,6 +4240,10 @@ int nand_erase_nand(struct nand_chip *chip, struct 
erase_info *instr,
if (check_offs_len(chip, instr->addr, instr->len))
return -EINVAL;
 
+   /* Check if the region is secured */
+   if (nand_region_is_secured(chip, instr->addr, instr->len))
+   return -EIO;
+
/* Grab the lock and see if the device is available */
ret = nand_get_device(chip);
if (ret)
@@ -4995,6 +5059,31 @@ static bool of_get_nand_on_flash_bbt(struct device_node 
*np)
return