Hi Alan,
On Thursday 30 Mar 2017 11:55:18 Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:26:32 -0400 (EDT) Alan Stern escreveu:
> >> On Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> >>>> Btw, I'm a lot more concerned about USB storage drivers. When I was
> >>>> discussing about this issue at the #raspberrypi-devel IRC channel,
> >>>> someone complained that, after switching from the RPi downstream
> >>>> Kernel to upstream, his USB data storage got corrupted. Well, if the
> >>>> USB storage drivers also assume that the buffer can be continuous,
> >>>> that can corrupt data.
> >>>
> >>> They do assume that.
> >>
> >> Wait a minute. Where does that assumption occur?
> >>
> >> And exactly what is the assumption? Mauro wrote "the buffer can be
> >> continuous", but that is certainly not what he meant.
> >
> > What I meant to say is that drivers like the uvcdriver (and maybe network
> > and usb-storage drivers) may allocate a big buffer and get data there on
> > some random order, e. g.:
> >
> > int get_from_buf_pos(char *buf, int pos, int size)
> > {
> > /* or an equivalent call to usb_submit_urb() */
> > usb_control_msg(..., buf + pos, size, ...);
> > }
> >
> > some_function ()
> > {
> > ...
> >
> > chr *buf = kzalloc(4, GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> > /*
> > * Access the bytes at the array on a random order, with random size,
> > * Like:
> > */
> > get_from_buf_pos(buf, 2, 2); /* should read 0x56, 0x78 */
> > get_from_buf_pos(buf, 0, 2); /* should read 0x12, 0x34 */
> >
> > /*
> > * the expected value for the buffer would be:
> > * { 0x12, 0x34, 0x56, 0x78 }
> > */
> >
> > E. g. they assume that the transfer URB can work with any arbitrary
> > pointer and size, without needing of pre-align them.
> >
> > This doesn't work with HCD drivers like dwc2, as each USB_IN operation
> > will actually write 4 bytes to the buffer.
> >
> > So, what happens, instead, is that each data transfer will get four
> > bytes. Due to a hack inside dwc2, with checks if the transfer_buffer
> > is DWORD aligned. So, the first transfer will do what's expected: it will
> > read 4 bytes to a temporary buffer, allocated inside the driver,
> > copying just two bytes to buf. So, after the first read, the
> >
> > buffer content will be:
> > buf = { 0x00, x00, 0x56, 0x78 }
> >
> > But, on the second read, it won't be using any temporary
> > buffer. So, instead of reading a 16-bits word (0x5678),
> > it will actually read 32 bits, with 16-bits with some random value,
> >
> > causing a buffer overflow. E. g. buffer content will now be:
> > buf = { 0x12, x34, 0xde, 0xad }
> >
> > In other words, the second transfer corrupted the data from the
> > first transfer.
>
> I'm pretty sure that usb-storage does not do this, at least, not when
> operating in its normal Bulk-Only-Transport mode. It never tries to
> read the results of an earlier transfer after carrying out a later
> transfer to any part of the same buffer.
The uvcvideo driver does something similar. Given the size of the transfer a
bounce buffer shouldn't affect performances. Handling this in the USB core
sounds like the best solution to me.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
