Message ID | 20200909193419.2006744-1-james.hilliard1@gmail.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | [v2] usb: serial: Repair FTDI FT232R bricked eeprom | expand |
On September 10, 2020 12:02:34 PM GMT+09:00, Oliver Neukum <oneukum@suse.de> wrote: >Am Mittwoch, den 09.09.2020, 13:34 -0600 schrieb James Hilliard: >> This patch detects and reverses the effects of the malicious FTDI >> Windows driver version 2.12.00(FTDIgate). > >Hi, > >this raises questions. >Should we do this unconditionally without asking? >Does this belong into kernel space? I agree; this is very cute, but does it really need to be an automatic Linux feature? Presumably someone looking to fix a bricked FTDI chip can just run my script, and those who just want to use those chips with Linux already can since the driver binds to the zero PID. I am deeply amused by the idea of Linux automatically fixing problems caused by malicious Windows drivers, but thinking objectively, I'm not sure if that's the right thing to do. > >> +static int ftdi_repair_brick(struct usb_serial_port *port) >> +{ >> + struct ftdi_private *priv = usb_get_serial_port_data(port); >> + int orig_latency; >> + int rv; >> + u16 *eeprom_data; >> + u16 checksum; >> + int eeprom_size; >> + int result; >> + >> + switch (priv->chip_type) { >> + case FT232RL: >> + eeprom_size = 0x40; >> + break; >> + default: >> + /* Unsupported for brick repair */ >> + return 0; >> + } >> + >> + /* Latency timer needs to be 0x77 to unlock EEPROM programming */ >> + if (priv->latency != 0x77) { >> + orig_latency = priv->latency; >> + priv->latency = 0x77; >> + rv = write_latency_timer(port); >> + priv->latency = orig_latency; >> + if (rv < 0) >> + return -EIO; >> + } > >Do you really want to change this without returning to the original? > > Regards > Oliver
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 9:17 PM Hector Martin "marcan" <hector@marcansoft.com> wrote: > > > > On September 10, 2020 12:02:34 PM GMT+09:00, Oliver Neukum <oneukum@suse.de> wrote: > >Am Mittwoch, den 09.09.2020, 13:34 -0600 schrieb James Hilliard: > >> This patch detects and reverses the effects of the malicious FTDI > >> Windows driver version 2.12.00(FTDIgate). > > > >Hi, > > > >this raises questions. > >Should we do this unconditionally without asking? > >Does this belong into kernel space? > > I agree; this is very cute, but does it really need to be an automatic Linux feature? Presumably someone looking to fix a bricked FTDI chip can just run my script, and those who just want to use those chips with Linux already can since the driver binds to the zero PID. Well for one your script is not easily useable with embedded platforms like mine where I ran into this issue, I have no python2 interpreter available in my production builds. > > I am deeply amused by the idea of Linux automatically fixing problems caused by malicious Windows drivers, but thinking objectively, I'm not sure if that's the right thing to do.
On September 10, 2020 12:46:20 PM GMT+09:00, James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@gmail.com> wrote: >On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 9:17 PM Hector Martin "marcan" ><hector@marcansoft.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On September 10, 2020 12:02:34 PM GMT+09:00, Oliver Neukum ><oneukum@suse.de> wrote: >> >Am Mittwoch, den 09.09.2020, 13:34 -0600 schrieb James Hilliard: >> >> This patch detects and reverses the effects of the malicious FTDI >> >> Windows driver version 2.12.00(FTDIgate). >> > >> >Hi, >> > >> >this raises questions. >> >Should we do this unconditionally without asking? >> >Does this belong into kernel space? >> >> I agree; this is very cute, but does it really need to be an >automatic Linux feature? Presumably someone looking to fix a bricked >FTDI chip can just run my script, and those who just want to use those >chips with Linux already can since the driver binds to the zero PID. >Well for one your script is not easily useable with embedded platforms >like mine where I ran into this issue, I have no python2 interpreter >available in my production builds. Surely you can port the exact same algorithm to plain userspace C, as you did to kernel space C :) >> >> I am deeply amused by the idea of Linux automatically fixing problems >caused by malicious Windows drivers, but thinking objectively, I'm not >sure if that's the right thing to do. >From my understanding Linux fixing up hardware issues caused >by faulty/weird Windows drivers isn't exactly unusual. I'm not aware of any instances like this where nonvolatile memory is modified. At most you'll get things like resetting devices that a previous windows warm boot misconfigured, I think? >> >> > >> >> +static int ftdi_repair_brick(struct usb_serial_port *port) >> >> +{ >> >> + struct ftdi_private *priv = usb_get_serial_port_data(port); >> >> + int orig_latency; >> >> + int rv; >> >> + u16 *eeprom_data; >> >> + u16 checksum; >> >> + int eeprom_size; >> >> + int result; >> >> + >> >> + switch (priv->chip_type) { >> >> + case FT232RL: >> >> + eeprom_size = 0x40; >> >> + break; >> >> + default: >> >> + /* Unsupported for brick repair */ >> >> + return 0; >> >> + } >> >> + >> >> + /* Latency timer needs to be 0x77 to unlock EEPROM >programming */ >> >> + if (priv->latency != 0x77) { >> >> + orig_latency = priv->latency; >> >> + priv->latency = 0x77; >> >> + rv = write_latency_timer(port); >> >> + priv->latency = orig_latency; >> >> + if (rv < 0) >> >> + return -EIO; >> >> + } >> > >> >Do you really want to change this without returning to the original? >> > >> > Regards >> > Oliver >> >> -- >> Hector Martin "marcan" (hector@marcansoft.com) >> Public key: https://mrcn.st/pub
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 9:49 PM Hector Martin "marcan" <hector@marcansoft.com> wrote: > > > > On September 10, 2020 12:46:20 PM GMT+09:00, James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 9:17 PM Hector Martin "marcan" > ><hector@marcansoft.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On September 10, 2020 12:02:34 PM GMT+09:00, Oliver Neukum > ><oneukum@suse.de> wrote: > >> >Am Mittwoch, den 09.09.2020, 13:34 -0600 schrieb James Hilliard: > >> >> This patch detects and reverses the effects of the malicious FTDI > >> >> Windows driver version 2.12.00(FTDIgate). > >> > > >> >Hi, > >> > > >> >this raises questions. > >> >Should we do this unconditionally without asking? > >> >Does this belong into kernel space? > >> > >> I agree; this is very cute, but does it really need to be an > >automatic Linux feature? Presumably someone looking to fix a bricked > >FTDI chip can just run my script, and those who just want to use those > >chips with Linux already can since the driver binds to the zero PID. > >Well for one your script is not easily useable with embedded platforms > >like mine where I ran into this issue, I have no python2 interpreter > >available in my production builds. > > Surely you can port the exact same algorithm to plain userspace C, as you did to kernel space C :) Sure, but it would be significantly more complex, require a lot more code and testing since there can be other userspace apps interacting with the hardware, in addition to being less reliable and potentially difficult to install for some setups. Detecting and dealing with this issue in the kernel is very simple and reliable in comparison. There's also potentially permissions issues if one wants to do this from userspace from my understanding. > > >> > >> I am deeply amused by the idea of Linux automatically fixing problems > >caused by malicious Windows drivers, but thinking objectively, I'm not > >sure if that's the right thing to do. > >From my understanding Linux fixing up hardware issues caused > >by faulty/weird Windows drivers isn't exactly unusual. > > I'm not aware of any instances like this where nonvolatile memory is modified. At most you'll get things like resetting devices that a previous windows warm boot misconfigured, I think? Yeah, I think it's mostly nonvolatile memory, I've seen this issue quite a bit with some of the Realtek ethernet drivers. I think user experience for devices should be that one can move a USB device from Linux to Windows and back without having to manually reprogram an eeprom. The sheer amount of resources FTDI has wasted with their malicious Windows driver is crazy and likely far exceeds any losses from counterfeiting. I think due to how widespread this issue is it makes sense to aggressively and automatically mitigate the damages wherever possible, it's also likely a major source of ewaste since people may throw out perfectly functional hardware without knowing it can be fixed easily. > > >> > >> > > >> >> +static int ftdi_repair_brick(struct usb_serial_port *port) > >> >> +{ > >> >> + struct ftdi_private *priv = usb_get_serial_port_data(port); > >> >> + int orig_latency; > >> >> + int rv; > >> >> + u16 *eeprom_data; > >> >> + u16 checksum; > >> >> + int eeprom_size; > >> >> + int result; > >> >> + > >> >> + switch (priv->chip_type) { > >> >> + case FT232RL: > >> >> + eeprom_size = 0x40; > >> >> + break; > >> >> + default: > >> >> + /* Unsupported for brick repair */ > >> >> + return 0; > >> >> + } > >> >> + > >> >> + /* Latency timer needs to be 0x77 to unlock EEPROM > >programming */ > >> >> + if (priv->latency != 0x77) { > >> >> + orig_latency = priv->latency; > >> >> + priv->latency = 0x77; > >> >> + rv = write_latency_timer(port); > >> >> + priv->latency = orig_latency; > >> >> + if (rv < 0) > >> >> + return -EIO; > >> >> + } > >> > > >> >Do you really want to change this without returning to the original? > >> > > >> > Regards > >> > Oliver > >> > >> -- > >> Hector Martin "marcan" (hector@marcansoft.com) > >> Public key: https://mrcn.st/pub > > -- > Hector Martin "marcan" (hector@marcansoft.com) > Public key: https://mrcn.st/pub
On 9/10/2020 10:02, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Mittwoch, den 09.09.2020, 13:34 -0600 schrieb James Hilliard: >> This patch detects and reverses the effects of the malicious FTDI >> Windows driver version 2.12.00(FTDIgate). > > Hi, > > this raises questions. > Should we do this unconditionally without asking? > Does this belong into kernel space? > My answer to both of those question is a strong NO. The patch author tries to justify the patch with egoistical arguments (easier for him and his customers) without thinking of all other users of memory constrained embedded hardware that doesn't need the patch code but have to carry it. The bricked PID is btw already supported by the linux ftdi driver so there is no functionality gain in the patch. br Lars
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 11:34 PM Lars Melin <larsm17@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 9/10/2020 10:02, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, den 09.09.2020, 13:34 -0600 schrieb James Hilliard: > >> This patch detects and reverses the effects of the malicious FTDI > >> Windows driver version 2.12.00(FTDIgate). > > > > Hi, > > > > this raises questions. > > Should we do this unconditionally without asking? > > Does this belong into kernel space? > > > > My answer to both of those question is a strong NO. > > The patch author tries to justify the patch with egoistical arguments > (easier for him and his customers) without thinking of all other users > of memory constrained embedded hardware that doesn't need the patch code > but have to carry it. If that's a concern it would not be difficult to add a kconfig option to allow disabling it. > > The bricked PID is btw already supported by the linux ftdi driver so > there is no functionality gain in the patch. By the kernel driver sure, but userspace is where things get messed up without something like this. > > br > Lars > > >
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:48 AM James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 11:34 PM Lars Melin <larsm17@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 9/10/2020 10:02, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > Am Mittwoch, den 09.09.2020, 13:34 -0600 schrieb James Hilliard: > > >> This patch detects and reverses the effects of the malicious FTDI > > >> Windows driver version 2.12.00(FTDIgate). > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > this raises questions. > > > Should we do this unconditionally without asking? > > > Does this belong into kernel space? > > > > > > > My answer to both of those question is a strong NO. > > > > The patch author tries to justify the patch with egoistical arguments > > (easier for him and his customers) without thinking of all other users > > of memory constrained embedded hardware that doesn't need the patch code > > but have to carry it. > If that's a concern it would not be difficult to add a kconfig option to allow > disabling it. I should maybe add that the reason I'm trying to upstream this is because I have been repeatedly bitten by this issue for years over many totally unrelated projects, as have many people I know. If this was a one-off issue I would not have spent the time writing a kernel patch to fix it. The supply chains must be heavily contaminated with counterfeits with how often I've personally run into this problem. The damage done by FTDI with their malicious drivers really is hard to quantify, both in terms of wasted man hours working around this issue and in the inevitable mountains of e-waste they create by bricking end user hardware. Most of these customers have likely never even heard of FTDI, they even intentionally designed their malicious drivers to make it non-obvious that the failures are due to counterfeits, completely unethical behavior IMO. FTDI may very well be one of the least environmentally friendly companies in terms of environmental damage per dollar of revenue. > > > > The bricked PID is btw already supported by the linux ftdi driver so > > there is no functionality gain in the patch. > By the kernel driver sure, but userspace is where things get messed up > without something like this. > > > > br > > Lars > > > > > >
On 10/09/2020 15.45, James Hilliard wrote: >>> +static int ftdi_write_eeprom(struct usb_serial_port *port, u8 addr, u16 data) >>> +{ >>> + struct usb_device *udev = port->serial->dev; >>> + int rv; >>> + >>> + rv = usb_control_msg(udev, >>> + usb_sndctrlpipe(udev, 0), >>> + FTDI_SIO_WRITE_EEPROM_REQUEST, >>> + FTDI_SIO_WRITE_EEPROM_REQUEST_TYPE, >>> + data, addr, >>> + NULL, 0, WDR_TIMEOUT); >>> + if (rv < 0) >>> + dev_err(&port->dev, "Unable to write EEPROM: %i\n", rv); >> >> You don't check for a "short write"? > From my understanding the hardware only accepts 2 byte writes, and > the non-counterfeits actually only commit writes on odd addresses > while they buffer writes on even(this difference is what FTDI's windows > driver exploits). So I guess this should be "if (rv < 2)"? It's not "data" anyway, the data word gets sent in control message headers. Unless I'm mistaken rv == 0 on success, so the code should be correct as-is. >> >>> + return rv; >>> +} >>> + >>> +static u16 ftdi_checksum(u16 *data, int n) >>> +{ >>> + u16 checksum; >>> + int i; >>> + >>> + checksum = 0xaaaa; >>> + for (i = 0; i < n - 1; i++) { >>> + checksum ^= be16_to_cpu(data[i]); >>> + checksum = (checksum << 1) | (checksum >> 15); >>> + } >> >> What type of function is this, don't we have all of the needed checksum >> functions in the kernel already? > Some custom crc16 style checksum I guess, I'm not seeing anything > in the kernel that's the same, although I might not be looking in the > right places. This isn't a CRC, it's some random xor all the words thing with a somewhat pointless rotation in the way. I'd be surprised if anything elses uses this particular function. Pretty sure other drivers are littered with stuff like this too, hardware manufacturers love to reinvent checksums.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 02:17:44AM -0600, James Hilliard wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:08 AM Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:33:55PM +0700, Lars Melin wrote: > > > On 9/10/2020 10:02, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > > Am Mittwoch, den 09.09.2020, 13:34 -0600 schrieb James Hilliard: > > > >> This patch detects and reverses the effects of the malicious FTDI > > > >> Windows driver version 2.12.00(FTDIgate). > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > this raises questions. > > > > Should we do this unconditionally without asking? > > > > Does this belong into kernel space? > > > > > > > > > > My answer to both of those question is a strong NO. > > > > > > The patch author tries to justify the patch with egoistical arguments > > > (easier for him and his customers) without thinking of all other users > > > of memory constrained embedded hardware that doesn't need the patch code > > > but have to carry it. > > > > > > The bricked PID is btw already supported by the linux ftdi driver so > > > there is no functionality gain in the patch. > > > > I fully agree. This doesn't belong in the kernel. If the Windows driver > > breaks someones device on purpose they should know about it, and *if* > > they want they can reprogram the device using the tools mentioned in the > > thread. But the kernel shouldn't be playing such games and reprogram > > eeproms behind people's backs. > One of the main issues is that this issue is very often not-obvious, FTDI > specifically designed their malicious driver to make it appear that the > hardware failed, they intentionally do not provide proper feedback to > the user when they soft-brick it. I assume this is because they want > to push the support costs related to their malicious driver onto the > integrator rather than themselves. That's fine, but why is it the Linux kernel's job to fix up this mess? There is already a userspace tool that can be run to resolve this for devices that wish to have this fixed up for. Use that. We want to keep things that can be done in userspace, in userspace, whenever possible. And again, Linux runs just fine with these devices so why is it Linux's I'm with Johan here, reprogramming eeproms when people least expect it is not nice, and in a way, is much the same thing that the Windows drivers are doing. thanks, greg k-h
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:55 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 02:17:44AM -0600, James Hilliard wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:08 AM Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:33:55PM +0700, Lars Melin wrote: > > > > On 9/10/2020 10:02, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > > > Am Mittwoch, den 09.09.2020, 13:34 -0600 schrieb James Hilliard: > > > > >> This patch detects and reverses the effects of the malicious FTDI > > > > >> Windows driver version 2.12.00(FTDIgate). > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > this raises questions. > > > > > Should we do this unconditionally without asking? > > > > > Does this belong into kernel space? > > > > > > > > > > > > > My answer to both of those question is a strong NO. > > > > > > > > The patch author tries to justify the patch with egoistical arguments > > > > (easier for him and his customers) without thinking of all other users > > > > of memory constrained embedded hardware that doesn't need the patch code > > > > but have to carry it. > > > > > > > > The bricked PID is btw already supported by the linux ftdi driver so > > > > there is no functionality gain in the patch. > > > > > > I fully agree. This doesn't belong in the kernel. If the Windows driver > > > breaks someones device on purpose they should know about it, and *if* > > > they want they can reprogram the device using the tools mentioned in the > > > thread. But the kernel shouldn't be playing such games and reprogram > > > eeproms behind people's backs. > > One of the main issues is that this issue is very often not-obvious, FTDI > > specifically designed their malicious driver to make it appear that the > > hardware failed, they intentionally do not provide proper feedback to > > the user when they soft-brick it. I assume this is because they want > > to push the support costs related to their malicious driver onto the > > integrator rather than themselves. > > That's fine, but why is it the Linux kernel's job to fix up this mess? Well the kernel seems to be the place a fix would be most effective. Not like it's unusual for the kernel to work around hardware issues in general. :P > > There is already a userspace tool that can be run to resolve this for > devices that wish to have this fixed up for. Use that. We want to keep > things that can be done in userspace, in userspace, whenever possible. So I'm having trouble coming up with a reliable way to fix this in userspace, I've already got quite a few moving parts there as is and most of what I come up with seems like it would not work reliably, at least for automatically repairing the eeprom. > > And again, Linux runs just fine with these devices so why is it Linux's > > I'm with Johan here, reprogramming eeproms when people least expect it > is not nice, and in a way, is much the same thing that the Windows > drivers are doing. Yeah, it does seem a bit sketchy at first, I went with this approach mostly since I couldn't think of a practical scenario where fixing it automatically would be a real issue, assuming we can reliably detect the preimage attack. So maybe identify the preimage attack and log a message instead? From my understanding false positives should be nearly impossible with the signature identification technique I'm using. Maybe we could expose an interface that triggers the eeprom repair, one which doesn't require userspace to implement low level USB handling? > > thanks, > > greg k-h
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 04:54:08AM +0900, Hector Martin wrote: > On 11/09/2020 03.51, James Hilliard wrote: > > I haven't tested this yet but my assumption was that either a kernel driver > > or libusb can issue usb control messages, but both can not be bound to > > a device at the same time. I figured this wouldn't have come up when you > > tested your python script since the script likely predated adding the brick PID > > to the ftdi_sio Linux kernel driver. > > Binding to interfaces is exclusive, but global device control messages are > not issued to an interface. I think it should work even if the kernel driver > is bound (this is how lsusb works too, since it issues control requests even > to devices bound to drivers). Even if it is necessary to unbind it, though, > libusb already provides a single function to do that > (libusb_detach_kernel_driver). You really should unbind the device from the driver when doing stuff like this, so the kernel doesn't get confused. thanks, greg k-h
diff --git a/drivers/usb/serial/ftdi_sio.c b/drivers/usb/serial/ftdi_sio.c index 871cdccf3a5f..85324e2ea107 100644 --- a/drivers/usb/serial/ftdi_sio.c +++ b/drivers/usb/serial/ftdi_sio.c @@ -1062,6 +1062,9 @@ static const char *ftdi_chip_name[] = { /* function prototypes for a FTDI serial converter */ static int ftdi_sio_probe(struct usb_serial *serial, const struct usb_device_id *id); +static int ftdi_read_eeprom(struct usb_serial *serial, void *dst, u16 addr, + u16 nbytes); +static int ftdi_write_eeprom(struct usb_serial_port *port, u8 addr, u16 data); static int ftdi_sio_port_probe(struct usb_serial_port *port); static int ftdi_sio_port_remove(struct usb_serial_port *port); static int ftdi_open(struct tty_struct *tty, struct usb_serial_port *port); @@ -1996,39 +1999,6 @@ static int ftdi_gpio_direction_output(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned int gpio, return result; } -static int ftdi_read_eeprom(struct usb_serial *serial, void *dst, u16 addr, - u16 nbytes) -{ - int read = 0; - - if (addr % 2 != 0) - return -EINVAL; - if (nbytes % 2 != 0) - return -EINVAL; - - /* Read EEPROM two bytes at a time */ - while (read < nbytes) { - int rv; - - rv = usb_control_msg(serial->dev, - usb_rcvctrlpipe(serial->dev, 0), - FTDI_SIO_READ_EEPROM_REQUEST, - FTDI_SIO_READ_EEPROM_REQUEST_TYPE, - 0, (addr + read) / 2, dst + read, 2, - WDR_TIMEOUT); - if (rv < 2) { - if (rv >= 0) - return -EIO; - else - return rv; - } - - read += rv; - } - - return 0; -} - static int ftdi_gpio_init_ft232h(struct usb_serial_port *port) { struct ftdi_private *priv = usb_get_serial_port_data(port); @@ -2234,10 +2204,149 @@ static int ftdi_sio_probe(struct usb_serial *serial, return 0; } +static int ftdi_read_eeprom(struct usb_serial *serial, void *dst, u16 addr, + u16 nbytes) +{ + int read = 0; + + if (addr % 2 != 0) + return -EINVAL; + if (nbytes % 2 != 0) + return -EINVAL; + + /* Read EEPROM two bytes at a time */ + while (read < nbytes) { + int rv; + + rv = usb_control_msg(serial->dev, + usb_rcvctrlpipe(serial->dev, 0), + FTDI_SIO_READ_EEPROM_REQUEST, + FTDI_SIO_READ_EEPROM_REQUEST_TYPE, + 0, (addr + read) / 2, dst + read, 2, + WDR_TIMEOUT); + if (rv < 2) { + if (rv >= 0) + return -EIO; + else + return rv; + } + + read += rv; + } + + return 0; +} + +static int ftdi_write_eeprom(struct usb_serial_port *port, u8 addr, u16 data) +{ + struct usb_device *udev = port->serial->dev; + int rv; + + rv = usb_control_msg(udev, + usb_sndctrlpipe(udev, 0), + FTDI_SIO_WRITE_EEPROM_REQUEST, + FTDI_SIO_WRITE_EEPROM_REQUEST_TYPE, + data, addr, + NULL, 0, WDR_TIMEOUT); + if (rv < 0) + dev_err(&port->dev, "Unable to write EEPROM: %i\n", rv); + return rv; +} + +static u16 ftdi_checksum(u16 *data, int n) +{ + u16 checksum; + int i; + + checksum = 0xaaaa; + for (i = 0; i < n - 1; i++) { + checksum ^= be16_to_cpu(data[i]); + checksum = (checksum << 1) | (checksum >> 15); + } + + return cpu_to_be16(checksum); +} + +static int ftdi_repair_brick(struct usb_serial_port *port) +{ + struct ftdi_private *priv = usb_get_serial_port_data(port); + int orig_latency; + int rv; + u16 *eeprom_data; + u16 checksum; + int eeprom_size; + int result; + + switch (priv->chip_type) { + case FT232RL: + eeprom_size = 0x40; + break; + default: + /* Unsupported for brick repair */ + return 0; + } + + /* Latency timer needs to be 0x77 to unlock EEPROM programming */ + if (priv->latency != 0x77) { + orig_latency = priv->latency; + priv->latency = 0x77; + rv = write_latency_timer(port); + priv->latency = orig_latency; + if (rv < 0) + return -EIO; + } + + eeprom_data = kmalloc(eeprom_size * 2, GFP_KERNEL); + if (!eeprom_data) + return -ENOMEM; + + /* Read in EEPROM */ + result = ftdi_read_eeprom(port->serial, eeprom_data, 0x00, eeprom_size * 2); + if (result < 0) + goto end_repair_brick; + + /* Verify EEPROM is valid */ + checksum = ftdi_checksum(eeprom_data, eeprom_size); + if (checksum != eeprom_data[eeprom_size - 1]) + goto end_repair_brick; + + /* Skip if no preimage attack against target address 62 */ + if (eeprom_data[62] == 0) + goto end_repair_brick; + + /* Attempt to restore Product ID to 0x6001 */ + eeprom_data[2] = FTDI_8U232AM_PID; + + /* Clear preimage attack target address */ + eeprom_data[62] = 0; + + /* Calculate and verify new checksum */ + checksum = ftdi_checksum(eeprom_data, eeprom_size); + if (checksum != eeprom_data[eeprom_size - 1]) + goto end_repair_brick; + + /* Restore EEPROM PID to original pre-brick state */ + if (ftdi_write_eeprom(port, 2, eeprom_data[2]) < 0) + goto end_repair_brick; + + /* Restore EEPROM preimage target address to original pre-brick state */ + if (ftdi_write_eeprom(port, 62, eeprom_data[62]) < 0) + goto end_repair_brick; + + dev_info(&port->dev, "Successfully repaired eeprom bricked by FTDI's malicious Windows driver.\n"); + +end_repair_brick: + kfree(eeprom_data); + + return result; +} + static int ftdi_sio_port_probe(struct usb_serial_port *port) { struct ftdi_private *priv; const struct ftdi_sio_quirk *quirk = usb_get_serial_data(port->serial); + u16 vendor_id; + u16 product_id; int result; priv = kzalloc(sizeof(struct ftdi_private), GFP_KERNEL); @@ -2255,6 +2364,12 @@ static int ftdi_sio_port_probe(struct usb_serial_port *port) ftdi_set_max_packet_size(port); if (read_latency_timer(port) < 0) priv->latency = 16; + vendor_id = le16_to_cpu(port->serial->dev->descriptor.idVendor); + product_id = le16_to_cpu(port->serial->dev->descriptor.idProduct); + if (vendor_id == FTDI_VID && + product_id == FTDI_BRICK_PID && + priv->chip_type == FT232RL) + ftdi_repair_brick(port); write_latency_timer(port); create_sysfs_attrs(port); diff --git a/drivers/usb/serial/ftdi_sio.h b/drivers/usb/serial/ftdi_sio.h index be1641e0408b..40c6c4372a34 100644 --- a/drivers/usb/serial/ftdi_sio.h +++ b/drivers/usb/serial/ftdi_sio.h @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ #define FTDI_SIO_SET_BITMODE 0x0b /* Set bitbang mode */ #define FTDI_SIO_READ_PINS 0x0c /* Read immediate value of pins */ #define FTDI_SIO_READ_EEPROM 0x90 /* Read EEPROM */ +#define FTDI_SIO_WRITE_EEPROM 0x91 /* Write EEPROM */ /* Interface indices for FT2232, FT2232H and FT4232H devices */ #define INTERFACE_A 1 @@ -457,6 +458,9 @@ enum ftdi_sio_baudrate { #define FTDI_SIO_READ_EEPROM_REQUEST_TYPE 0xc0 #define FTDI_SIO_READ_EEPROM_REQUEST FTDI_SIO_READ_EEPROM +#define FTDI_SIO_WRITE_EEPROM_REQUEST_TYPE 0x40 +#define FTDI_SIO_WRITE_EEPROM_REQUEST FTDI_SIO_WRITE_EEPROM + #define FTDI_FTX_CBUS_MUX_GPIO 0x8 #define FTDI_FT232R_CBUS_MUX_GPIO 0xa