Re: [PATCH v4 02/10] mei: late_bind: add late binding component driver

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 02:02:15PM +0530, Nilawar, Badal wrote:
> On 28-06-2025 17:48, Greg KH wrote:
> > > + * @payload_size: size of the payload data in bytes
> > > + * @payload: data to be sent to the firmware
> > > + */
> > > +struct csc_heci_late_bind_req {
> > > +	struct mkhi_msg_hdr header;
> > > +	u32 type;
> > > +	u32 flags;
> > What is the endian of these fields?  And as this crosses the
> > kernel/hardware boundry, shouldn't these be __u32?
> 
> endian of these fields is little endian, all the headers are little endian. 
> I will add comment at top.

No, use the proper types if this is little endian.  Don't rely on a
comment to catch things when it goes wrong.

> On __u32 I doubt we need to do it as csc send copy it to internal buffer.

If this crosses the kernel boundry, it needs to use the proper type.

> > > +{
> > > +	struct mei_cl_device *cldev;
> > > +	struct csc_heci_late_bind_req *req = NULL;
> > > +	struct csc_heci_late_bind_rsp rsp;
> > > +	size_t req_size;
> > > +	ssize_t ret;
> > > +
> > > +	if (!dev || !payload || !payload_size)
> > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > How can any of these ever happen as you control the callers of this
> > function?
> I will add WARN here.

So you will end up crashing the machine and getting a CVE assigned for
it?

Please no.  If it can't happen, then don't check for it.  If it can
happen, great, handle it properly.  Don't just give up and cause a
system to reboot, that's a horrible way to write kernel code.

thanks,

greg k-h