[PATCH] mtd: rawnand: Add a check in of_get_nand_secure_regions()

[Miquel Raynal]

Hi Mani,

Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani at kernel.org> wrote on Sat, 24 Jul 2021
21:33:08 +0530:

> On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 04:27:30PM +0200, Martin Kaiser wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Thus wrote Miquel Raynal (miquel.raynal at bootlin.com):
> >   
> > > On Thu, 2021-06-17 at 13:37:25 UTC, Dan Carpenter wrote:  
> > > > Check for whether of_property_count_elems_of_size() returns a negative
> > > > error code.  
> >   
> > > > Fixes: 13b89768275d ("mtd: rawnand: Add support for secure regions in NAND memory")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter at oracle.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani at kernel.org>  
> >   
> > > Applied to https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mtd/linux.git mtd/fixes, thanks.  
> > 
> > I'm running linux-next on an imx25 system with the following flash chip
> > 
> > [    1.997539] nand: device found, Manufacturer ID: 0x98, Chip ID: 0xaa
> > [    2.004134] nand: Toshiba NAND 256MiB 1,8V 8-bit
> > [    2.008917] nand: 256 MiB, SLC, erase size: 128 KiB, page size: 2048, OOB size: 128
> > 
> > The system is using the drivers/mtd/nand/raw/mxc_nand.c driver.
> > 
> > Since this commit appeared in linux-next, mxc_nand's probe function fails
> > with -EINVAL, taking this path
> > 
> > mxcnd_probe
> >    nand_scan
> >       nand_scan_with_ids
> >          nand_scan_tail
> >             of_get_nand_secure_regions
> > 
> > nr_elem = of_property_count_elems_of_size(dn, "secure-regions", sizeof(u64));
> > returns -EINVAL as there's no secure-regions property in my device tree.
> >   
> 
> Doh! Sorry for missing this.
> 
> > We should certainly handle negative error codes before we calculate
> > chip->nr_secure_regions = nr_elem / 2
> > but a missing secure-regions property is a valid case and should not make
> > the probe fail.
> >   
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> > If the property exists, but the device-tree entry is incorrect
> > and of_property_count_elems_of_size returns -ENODATA, we might print a
> > warning and ignore the entry.
> >   
> 
> Hmm, I think it is best to error out in this case as the user has got DT wrong.
> 
> > What do you think?
> >   
> 
> Since of_property_count_elems_of_size() returns -EINVAL if the length is not
> a multiple of sizeof(u64), we can't just ignore -EINVAL.
> 
> So I think we can just check for the existence of the property before invoking
> of_get_nand_secure_regions(). Miquel, what do you think?

Yes please add this check and we should be good.

Thanks,
Miquèl