Re: [PATCH 4/8] mtd: spi-nor: disallow further writes to SR if WP# is low

[Ezequiel Garcia]

On 28 January 2016 at 02:51, Brian Norris <computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Locking the flash is most useful if it provides real hardware security.
> Otherwise, it's little more than a software permission bit.
>
> A reasonable use case that provides real HW security might be like
> follows:
>
> (1) hardware WP# is deasserted
> (2) program flash
> (3) flash range is protected via status register
> (4) hardware WP# is asserted
> (5) flash protection range can no longer be changed, until WP# is
>     deasserted
>
> In this way, flash protection is co-owned by hardware and software.
>
> Now, one would expect to be able to perform step (3) with
> ioctl(MEMLOCK), except that the spi-nor driver does not set the Status
> Register Protect bit (a.k.a. Status Register Write Disable (SRWD)), so
> even though the range is now locked, it does not satisfy step (5) -- it
> can still be changed by a call to ioctl(MEMUNLOCK).
>
> So, let's enable status register protection after the first lock
> command.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c |    3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
> index 3a08aa53c171..46da6bb706fa 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
> @@ -518,6 +518,9 @@ static int stm_lock(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
>
>         status_new = (status_old & ~mask) | val;
>
> +       /* Disallow further writes if WP pin is asserted */
> +       status_new |= SR_SRWD;
> +

No need to clear SR_SRWD in stm_unlock?

-- 
Ezequiel GarcÃa, VanguardiaSur
www.vanguardiasur.com.ar