flashrom March 2022

flashrom@flashrom.org

32 participants
30 discussions

Release preparations
by Nico Huber 17 May '22

17 May '22

Hi folks, people often ask me about a potential next release and what is holding me back. Long story short, I knew about some bad things in our master branch that make a release impossible and I was very much afraid that there could be more that I don't know about. I've been scrolling through the commit log from v1.1 (the last release I was involved) to today's master. Some of the things I found are simple like something missing for a flash chip entry. But most of it are things I'd rather not have on a release branch. And the list turned out to be much longer than I expected. OTOH, I didn't find issues of the worst kind I expected. Not sure how to go on from here. As this is a lot to do, I suggest that we freeze the master branch for everything that is neither a fix nor on the list (or a similar case that I missed). I noted sometimes that we could just drop the code from a release branch. If we'd decide to do that, we'd also need a plan how to stop the rot on the master branch. Below are my raw notes, I don't have the time to write things up nicely. I noted the commit hash where things began, but tried to take the cur- rent state into account. For instance, when it's about a new programmer driver, I was looking at the file, not the initial patch. Cheers, Nico Recommended clean-ups and investigations before v1.3 ==================================================== * cb973683 Added partial meson support which confuses package main- tainers. Should we remove it from or disable CLI building on release branches? * 71b706f5 Adds some libflashrom APIs with questionable design, buggy implementation and no visible user. Would be easiest to drop and add back when somebody needs it. Open comment. Partially fixed up. * 86fc9cf7 Open comment. Partially fixed up. * 05c629be Looks incomplete, flash would be fully erased with programmers that lack native 4BA command support. * ad08aef6 Undocumented programmer. disable? drop from realease branch? * 703de983 Added `spireadmode` param to sb600spi. (How) does it work? * 13a2ef6c Added `lspcon_i2c_spi`. Too generic name: LSPCon is a concept but driver seems to be about a specific vendor/chip. No pro- bing just starts to write to hardcoded addresses. WP code contains magic numbers, board specific? Implements `spi_ master` but contains hard-coded SPI opcodes. Not documented? disable? drop from release branch? * d97f87b0 Added `realtek_mst_i2c_spi`. No probing, starts by toggling a GPIO. Are GPIO settings board specific? Timeout checks seem to have regressed since original commit. Not documented? Changes clock settings, is this board specific? Implements `spi_master` with special cases in an opcode LUT, doesn't bail out on unknown codes. Falls back on unaligned reads/ writes, were these paths tested? Fixups suggest that the original code wasn't properly tested, was it by now? disable? drop from release branch? * be4682dc Might miss some block erasers. * f82dd300 Might miss some block erasers. * a2dc4f7f It seems `clear_spi_id_cache()` is never called. Probably, should be before probing. * 3149822c Added variable size in `dummy_programmer`. Didn't look at it right now, but I remember it caused a lot of trouble. Probably not fully fixed up yet. * cb9f3cd0 Possible division by zero. * ca2e3bce Fixed some libpci usage. IIRC, there are many more similar cases that might need a fix now that libpci is more strict. * 0386aa17 sb600spi refactoring. Looks like it dropped an error message from many error paths. * f745d0e6, adbae0e2 Added infrastructure for S25F chips. Code style looks a bit outdated. Probably needs upstream review. * 8fa792fb Added chips with oddities and w/o reasoning, e.g: .total_size = 16384, /* This is just half the size.... */ Complete patch needs review. * 855d6b6f Added Ryzen support to sb600spi. API violations. Stalled other cleanup work. Soft bricks machines with >16MiB flash. Patches on Gerrit. drop from release branch? * 32f4cb4f Looks like copy-pasta from Winbond chips. Might miss some block erasers. Missing 4BA_WRITE is probably wrong. * 45d50a10 Added support code for per-region file arguments. Review was interrupted, IIRC. Rebase was borked shortly before merge. Work never finished. * d4063bf3 Missed to update the manpage. Literal `-` shouldn't be in `<>`. * ce983bcc Missed to update the manpage. Filters only spaces when converting region names to file names. * 51e1d0e4 Still selects the wrong chipset, IIRC. * e98b2d11 Review never really started. See comments on Gerrit. Backport candidates =================== * 4ca575dc usbdev: Only match requested USB devices * 8bbb7648 spi95: Check for success before using send_command's returned data * b07c53d7 spi25: Debug flashrom crash when Write Protect is ON Looks like this covers up a general problem with flash-chip entries. Why would we know how to disable block protection if we don't know how to report it? Should probably be added to self checks. * 51261541 it87spi.c: Prevent use-after-free bug * da0825f0 chipset_enable.c: check return value from rphysmap() call * 705212da chipset_enable.c: Validate physmap() return rcrb value * b76d2810 dediprog: Fix segmentation fault on no device found * 1a21cc70 helpers.c: Fix undefined behavior in strndup() * a2f2f3f5 linux_mtd: Disable buffering on the mtd device * ab623c65 jlink_spi: Reduce transfer size * Many fixes in dummy_flasher, not sure if they were applicable earlier. * aedfb7eb flashrom.8: add missing entry for `--flash-contents` * 89c73b5a linux_mtd: check ioctl() return value properly

11 25

Gatekeeping, ACLs and Review Rules
by Nico Huber 17 May '22

17 May '22

Dear fellow flashrom developers, I've been reflecting lately about written and unwritten rules around our review process and our related privileges on Gerrit. I couldn't identify anything that works well, or let's say well enough. So it might be time we discuss some things and make changes :) Before the dawn of our Git repository and using Gerrit as a review plat- form, we had a Subversion repository. With very few people, usually one or two I think, that had write access. So practically we had gatekeepers that watched over the code. Eventually, they became a bottleneck so we widened that a little when starting the work on Gerrit. Today, I often catch myself falling back into such a gatekeeper mode. Which is futile anyway because I'm not the only one who can write to the repository. But I still wonder why this happens and if it's necessary. I guess first everyone needs to understand how we imagined things with Gerrit and how it looks like today. As mentioned above we set up a group "flashrom developers" which has exclusive write access to the reposi- tory. The idea was to only have people in this group who are long-term (I was thinking about years) contributors to flashrom, know each other from real-time communication (IRC) and trust each other. For the review right "+2", we used the "Reviewers" group from coreboot. IIRC, I pushed for the latter. I was hoping to grow the communities a little together that seemed to have gone separate ways in the years before. After all, a lot of coreboot developers use flashrom in their everyday work. Combined with the "flashrom developers" group it shouldn't have been an issue that people with little flashrom knowledge would review. Since the original setup (about 2017) things went on rather uncon- trolled. I think the gist of it is that people didn't expect that flashrom would need/have different rules compared to coreboot. At some point somebody whom I only knew from their work on coreboot sud- denly merged patches for flashrom. And I guess people pushing patches today pretty much expect that there is nothing more to be done once they see the first +2. No matter if the reviewer knows anything about flashrom. When reviewers disagree then, it can become frustrating for everyone. So currently, I lean towards aligning our process more with that of coreboot. The big difference seems to be that at coreboot merging patches, i.e. hitting the "Submit" button, is more or less considered an administrative task unrelated to one's opinion on the code. While for us it was supposed to replace the gatekeeping. Changing this would imply that we need our own group of reviewers. With this, a +2 would become both rarer and stronger. If this idea meets some consent, I would propose to copy the "flashrom developers" group for a start. And when we identify somebody over time who shows in-depth knowledge about at least a part of flashrom and good self-judgement if they are experienced enough for a +2, we could add them. Right now, some candidates come to mind already, Peter, Nikolai, and Thomas. The "flashrom developers" group also grants the privilege to block "-2" a change. I have very conflicting feelings about this. On one hand, this is a tool that is only ever necessary when people in said group can't trust each other. On the other, that seems to be the status quo already. Maybe we should have another group on top for this? This time really only for trusted, established, long-term contributors? Or maybe for those who maintain the codebase beyond what they are paid for? There is one related idea for a rule that crossed my mind: How about we forbid blocking reverts that fix a regression and apply cleanly (i.e. without needing to revert anything else in advance). Also, let them pass after review without waiting 24 hours. At least for myself this would reduce a lot pressure to fall back to gatekeeping if I knew I could keep things safe and sound without discussion. For maintainers, the patches that are already merged matter the most, cause the most work. This should also be the case for contributors, but alas many don't see it like this and don't help to fix things after a patch is merged. Easing reverts would push the hard work back to the people who break things. Looks a bit longer than what I intended to write, as usual when one starts writing ;) If we come to a conclusion wrt. Gerrit privileges, we could also discuss more rules for each role. While I'm not a fan of too many rules and would rather keep things to common sense, these things depend much on the people we add to the respective groups. I hope it's not too much to digest at once ;) Cheers, Nico

5 17

Questions regarding Easy project and GSoC
by Aarya Chaumal 17 May '22

17 May '22

Hello there, I hope you are well today when you receive this email. I am Aarya Chaumal, a Computer Engineering student at the College of Engineering Pune, India. While going through organizations for this year's Google's Summer of Code I came across your organization, Flashrom. I am a part of onboard computers subsystem at my college's satellite initiative. Through this, I have closely worked on Atmel SAM E70 XPLAINED board. Also, I have strong knowledge about C/C++ and assembly language. From your list of GSoC project ideas, I liked the idea of “Remove global state from flashrom” and "Optimize Erase-Function Selection", although I am not quite sure which one is more suitable for me. Can you guide me through this? As mentioned in your Contributor commitments and requirements, I started to do one of the easy projects - Add new flash chip definitions. For this, I read the relevant datasheets, one from the unlisted chips and another of a listed one (for reference) but still, I am not getting the information about some fields for the structure in the datasheet, namely the feature_bits, probe_timing. Also, do I have to write the probe, read, write and erase functions for the chip separately? Also, how do I test if my code is working as I don't have relevant hardware with me? Can you help me with this? Also what resources should I use to learn more about it? Thank you for looking into this for me. Sincerely, Aarya Chaumal

7 34

[GSoC 2022] Restructure Shutdown Function
by Joursoir 14 Apr '22

14 Apr '22

Good day, I am a student and very interested in flashrom. I fit the description of experienced C programmer. Open-source and low-level programming are my interests. I already have real experience with flashrom (CH341A programmer + chip "MX25L6436E") and want to become a GSoC 2022 contributor in this project. I find the "Restructure Shutdown Function" project interestring to me. But right now it has no mentors. Maybe someone from the mailing can help me. I have gone through sources and understand how things are now. The project description says "have a defined shutdown function in the programmer API". But we already have it. It's programmer_shutdown(). Or no? The first and easiest thing that comes to my mind is to refuse using callbacks and use enums, thusly: enum shutdown_func { SERPROG = 1 << 0, SPI = 1 << 1, ... }; int programmer_shutdown(enum shutdown_func execfunc) { ... if(execfunc & SERPROG) ret |= serprog_shutdown(...); if(execfunc & SPI) { /* the problem is that SPI programmers have own shutdown funcs, like dlc5_shutdown, byteblaster_shutdown, stlinkv3_spi_shutdown, so use struct spi_master, that contains shutdown callback */ ret |= spi_master_shutdown(...); } ... } This system has disadvantages, but it'll make easier to track the code flow. What are the potential problems in this implementation? What's with struct flashrom_programmer? Is not implemented yet? I would appreciate any feedback. -- Joursoir

3 15

Couldn't parse the descriptor?
by Pete Smith 12 Apr '22

12 Apr '22

I'm using a Raspberry Pi Zero and SOIC clip to communicate with a MX25L12873F chip, using flashrom built from master branch (1b1066e). Reading the chip is working fine, no matter how many times I do a read operation, the resulting firmware image is correct. However, I'm unable to write to the chip: ======================================================================== flashrom -p linux_spi:dev=/dev/spidev0.0,spispeed=1000 -c \ MX25L12833F/MX25L12835F/MX25L12845E/MX25L12865E/MX25L12873F \ -w firmware.bin --ifd -i fd -i bios -i me --noverify-all -VVV -o out.log Initializing linux_spi programmer Using device /dev/spidev0.0 Using 1000kHz clock get_max_kernel_buf_size: Using value from \ /sys/module/spidev/parameters/bufsiz as max buffer size. linux_spi_init: max_kernel_buf_size: 4096 The following protocols are supported: SPI. Probing for Macronix \ MX25L12833F/MX25L12835F/MX25L12845E/MX25L12865E/MX25L12873F, \ 16384 kB: programmer_map_flash_region: mapping \ MX25L12833F/MX25L12835F/MX25L12845E/MX25L12865E/MX25L12873F from \ 0xff000000 to 0x00000000 RDID returned 0xc2 0x20 0x18. compare_id: id1 0xc2, id2 0x2018 Added layout entry 00000000 - 00ffffff named complete flash Found Macronix flash chip \ "MX25L12833F/MX25L12835F/MX25L12845E/MX25L12865E/MX25L12873F" \ (16384 kB, SPI) on linux_spi. Chip status register is 0x7c. Chip status register: Status Register Write Disable (SRWD, SRP, ...) \ is not set Chip status register: Bit 6 is set Chip status register: Block Protect 3 (BP3) is set Chip status register: Block Protect 2 (BP2) is set Chip status register: Block Protect 1 (BP1) is set Chip status register: Block Protect 0 (BP0) is set Chip status register: Write Enable Latch (WEL) is not set Chip status register: Write In Progress (WIP/BUSY) is not set programmer_unmap_flash_region: unmapped 0x00000000 This chip may contain one-time programmable memory. flashrom cannot read and may never be able to write it, hence it may not be able to \ completely clone the contents of this chip (see man page for details). programmer_map_flash_region: mapping \ MX25L12833F/MX25L12835F/MX25L12845E/MX25L12865E/MX25L12873F from \ 0xff000000 to 0x00000000 Some block protection in effect, disabling... \ Block protection could not be disabled! Chip status register is 0x7c. Chip status register: Status Register Write Disable (SRWD, SRP, ...) \ is not set Chip status register: Bit 6 is set Chip status register: Block Protect 3 (BP3) is set Chip status register: Block Protect 2 (BP2) is set Chip status register: Block Protect 1 (BP1) is set Chip status register: Block Protect 0 (BP0) is set Chip status register: Write Enable Latch (WEL) is not set Chip status register: Write In Progress (WIP/BUSY) is not set Reading ich descriptor... done. layout_from_ich_descriptors():1367, returned with value -1. Couldn't parse the descriptor! Illegal instruction ======================================================================== On an identical system, I have been using the flashrom internal programmer to write the same firmware image without any errors parsing the descriptor. Any ideas why this happens? I'm a doing something wrong? Thanks. Best regards, Pete Smith

2 6

EU/AU flashrom dev meeting appointment time change
by Felix Singer 08 Apr '22

08 Apr '22

Hi all, as discussed in the last dev meeting, we can not have one appointment for EU, AU and US people during the time from 1. April until 30. September because of the time change. For this time, we have decided to split the meeting up into one meeting for EU/AU and another one for EU/US and we will alternate between them, so that all groups have a chance to participate. The next meeting will be on 6. April, which will target EU/AU. We created a poll [1] for voting. For EU/AU, we are proposing the following dates (UTC+0): * Monday, Wednesday, Thursday 7:00-8:00 * Monday, Wednesday, Thursday 9:15-10:15 // Felix [1] https://terminplaner4.dfn.de/dBtjEZxKqmcm721C

2 3

Inquiry about your GSOC idea: 'Modernize the flashrom website'
by Mohit Nehra 01 Apr '22

01 Apr '22

Sir/ Ma'am, I hope you are having a wonderful day, The GSOC project idea 'Modernize the flashrom website' was present in the ideas list a week ago but now it is not visible anymore. Please tell if you have intentionally removed it from the ideas list or there is some bug resulting in its removal. Thank you. Mohit Nehra (An aspiring student/ contributor to flashrom GSOC 2022)

2 2

Gsoc 2022 Proposal help
by Shivesh Chaturvedi 31 Mar '22

31 Mar '22

Sir, My name is Shivesh Chaturvedi, I am a second year undergraduate student of the department of Mechanical Engineering enrolled in its btech course at Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, West Bengal India. I am a resident of Lucknow Uttar Pradesh, India. I had worked on the project Idea of Modernising the UI of FlashRom website. I had now gone through the website nearly 2-3 dozen times and I had found some issues which I thought rectifying would help a lot of new people like me. I had worked on basically 5 main points :- 1. Improvement of UI. 2. Having a basic Tutorial on How to use the Website. 3. Some Pages are too long so the idea is to use their pagination view. 4. Having database support for pages like Supported Devices and other pages also will help to improve the website. 5. Having a community chat box feature will help the users very much. Currently I am trying to use Flashrom, but finding it very difficult as there is no proper tutorial available over the internet. I was attempting to contact using Liber Chat, but there was some miscommunication on the website. As a result, I'm sending a draft proposal to this email. Please Kindly take a look over them and do give me pointers that I am going in the right direction or not. Yours Sincerely Shivesh Chaturvedi (+91) 8840884608

1 0

Sharing info about flashrom HW seq code refactoring https://review.coreboot.org/q/topic:PCH_HW_SEQ_Cleanup
by Subrata Banik 31 Mar '22

31 Mar '22

Hello Team, Hope you are doing well. I would like bring this activity in your notice https://review.coreboot.org/q/topic:PCH_HW_SEQ_Cleanup and seek help to review the code. The reason for this refactoring of HW sequencing SPI driver code are: 1. We (Chrome OS team) recently ran into a firmware update issue on dogfooders (test device utilise by real users and share feedback) systems, where the attempt to perform SPI flash update operation from host-cpu (using underlying flashrom utility) is silently failing. Furthermore, we debug the issue with help of Intel and figure out the problem is related to multiple master is accessing the SPI flash and operation triggered by host-cpu side using flashrom (write and erase operation) is getting timed out (due to given lesser timeout boundary) due to underlying SPI bus is occupied by other master. This is the special case, starting from Tiger Lake Chrome Platform, where we have enable the PVAP (Protected Audio Video Path) which request CSE to perform some erase and write operation as needed. Now an attempt to perform firmware update from host-cpu side might coincide with the CSE performing SPI operations. The recommendation that coming out from Intel is to account the multiple master SPI operation while we are issuing the timeout from flashrom side. We are also expecting a doc update from Intel to share the exact timeout calculation (although I have attempted to document that early here https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/62867/1/ichspi.c#35). 2. Maintain the code symmetry between coreboot and flashrom SPI hardware sequencing operations. From the testing side, I have tested this code on Alderlake `Brya`, Tigerlake `volteer` and Kabylake `eve` devices, and looking for help from community to check on other systems as well (if possible). Furthermore, I have attempted to increase the timeout which won't impact the flashrom performance on the older and/or existing systems. Looking forward for your help on this request. Thanks, Subrata

3 7

Inquiry about a required task for GSOC.
by Israa Odeh 31 Mar '22

31 Mar '22

Dear Flashrom Org, While I was looking for a GSOC contribution that appeals to my interests and attracts my attention. I noticed your GSOC project ideas for Flashrom, and specifically, the task labeled as "Modernize the flashrom website", which I found quite interesting. Generally, I enjoy web development using CSS, HTML, JavaScript, and PHP, and I'm willing to learn new skills, work with various frameworks, and learn about other helping platforms to enhance my abilities. However, I would like to gain more details about what this project idea requires in minute details so that I could prepare an appropriate proposal and a good plan if it is suitable to me. Please Kindly, provide me with additional information about the requirements. Examples of a bunch of details that I need to know: - Who will be the mentors? (This isn't clarified for each task separately). - What are the expected outcomes you hope to accomplish with this task? - Do you mean specifically that you need to improve the front-end? (Is it specifically a front-end improvement?) - Must the design be responsive? - Are there any predetermined languages or frameworks to use? - Could you clarify what do you mean by saying "However, we have to find out what we need and which framework supports what. Then, various frameworks need to be evaluated and we need a plan on how to migrate to the new site." I'd appreciate hearing the required details from you. Kind Regards Israa Odeh. Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

flashrom March 2022