> Thank you for the bug report. I don't know the hardware in detail, but I
> am a bit confused...
>
>> ---
>> This bug reliably caused a stack corruption when the hardware provided more data than
>> asked for in the i2c request. The hardware (a tpm) very occasionally appends a burst of
>> 0xff to the end of the data requested and the i2c interrupt handler mindlessly copies all
>> the data right past the end of the buffer and in my case across the stack. :-(
>
> ... because you as the master should have control over how many bytes
> you want to have. If you are done, send NAK+STOP and the message is
> over. Is it really the device (which one is it BTW?)? Or is the FIFO
> handling of the master driver buggy?
>
> Michal, Sören?
Just a quick comment - as I don't have time at the moment to look
deeply into the driver at the moment.
I was just looking at Ch 20 of the TRM on the i2c under Read Transfer
and it says step 4 write the number of requested bytes to the Transfer
Size Register.
But in the code it talks about a work around for large receive operation.
Looking at the change log: commit 9fae82e1acda
Explains for transfers > 252 bytes that
"the transfer size register has to be maintained at a value >= 1
So my guess is the code is trying to keep this transfer size non-zero
and so just keeps pulling more bytes our of the slave i2c device. I
find it is hard to follow the complex code though.
My buggy condition was a transfer of 128 bytes so it is not hit this
condition except in that the slave supplies way more bytes than was in
the original i2c_transfer request.
Andrew
