Max `pBuffer` size for `stse_data_storage_update_data_zone()` unclear due to hidden overhead bytes
还没有人认领这个 Issue。
评估
- 难度
- 3/5
- 预计耗时
- 1-2 天
- 新手友好度
- 45/100
- Issue 类型
- 缺陷
- 描述清晰度
- 基本清楚
- 活跃度
- 冷清
- 技术栈
- c
- 领域
- embedded-iot, security
调研方向
Start in api/stse_data_storage.h, then trace stsafea_update_data_zone() in services/stsafea/stsafea_data_partition.c through stsafea_frame_transmit() in stsafea_frame_transfer.c and stse_platform_i2c_send_start(). Verify how payload, command fields, CRC, and response length contribute to frame_length; done means the maximum pBuffer size and the >= check are clearly established.
由索引模型根据 Issue 内容生成。
描述
I need to write a 639-byte DER certificate into the data partition (NVM zone index 1) of the STSAFE-A110, which has 700 bytes available. I cannot write all 639 bytes in a single call because we configured our Platform Abstraction Layer to use a buffer of STSAFEA_MAX_FRAME_LENGTH_A110 + 3 (507 + 3 = 510) bytes for I2C communication. So I considered implementing a function that writes the certificate by sending it in chunks of up to STSAFEA_MAX_FRAME_LENGTH_A110 (507) bytes via multiple calls to stse_data_storage_update_data_zone().
The problem is that if I try to write a chunk of 507 bytes, STSE_SERVICE_FRAME_SIZE_ERROR is immediately returned because the following condition evaluates to true (507 >= 507). I’m wondering why >= is used instead of simply >, is that a BUG?:
https://github.com/STMicroelectronics/STSELib/blob/7b34b7c9a5cc35eab6bd7c08c29a41efe3d88d8c/services/stsafea/stsafea_data_partition.c#L381-L383
In any case, I reduced the maximum chunk size to STSAFEA_MAX_FRAME_LENGTH_A110 - 1 (506), but then the failure occurs later due to stse_platform_i2c_send_start(), which returns STSE_PLATFORM_BUFFER_ERR, because frame_length is 513 bytes:
stse_ReturnCode_t stse_platform_i2c_send_start(PLAT_UI8 bus_id, PLAT_UI8 dev_addr, PLAT_UI16 speed,
PLAT_UI16 frame_length)
{
/* Check buffer overflow */
if (esc_stse_i2c[bus_id].tx_rx_buffer_length < frame_length) // 510 < 513
{
return STSE_PLATFORM_BUFFER_ERR;
}
esc_stse_i2c[bus_id].tx_rx_frame_length = frame_length;
esc_stse_i2c[bus_id].tx_rx_frame_offset = 0;
return STSE_OK;
}
Note that esc_stse_i2c[bus_id].tx_rx_buffer_length is set by us to STSAFEA_MAX_FRAME_LENGTH_A110 + 3 (507 + 3 = 510).
I would have expected the frame_length argument to be 509 (506 + 3), since here (https://github.com/STMicroelectronics/STSELib/issues/53#issuecomment-3809960369) @TofMassilia13320 mentioned that setting the I2C platform buffer to the maximum value STSAFEA_MAX_FRAME_LENGTH_Axxx + 3 bytes ensures full command coverage of the selected STSAFE-A without overflow at the I2C platform layer.
This led me to assume that STSELib would invoke stse_platform_i2c_send_start() with a frame_length argument that could reach at most STSAFEA_MAX_FRAME_LENGTH_Axxx + 3 (510 in my case).
In other words, I understood that STSELib adds at most 3 bytes to the user data (2 bytes for the response length + 1 byte for the command or response header), as mentioned by @nils-cercariolo-st here: https://github.com/STMicroelectronics/STSELib/issues/53#issuecomment-3802661164. However, this does not seem to hold true, as in my case frame_length is actually 513.
Digging into STSELib, I concluded that the extra 7 bytes are added by stsafea_update_data_zone() and stsafea_frame_transmit(). Specifically:
-
stsafea_update_data_zone()adds 5 bytes at the beginning of the I2C frame: 1 byte header, 1 byte zone access option, 1 byte zone index, and 2 bytes offset:
https://github.com/STMicroelectronics/STSELib/blob/7b34b7c9a5cc35eab6bd7c08c29a41efe3d88d8c/services/stsafea/stsafea_data_partition.c#L374-L379 -
stsafea_frame_transmit()adds 2 bytes of CRC at the end of the I2C frame:
https://github.com/STMicroelectronics/STSELib/blob/7b34b7c9a5cc35eab6bd7c08c29a41efe3d88d8c/services/stsafea/stsafea_frame_transfer.c#L63-L64
So the problem is: how can I determine the maximum length of the buffer pBuffer that I am allowed to pass to stse_data_storage_update_data_zone()?
https://github.com/STMicroelectronics/STSELib/blob/7b34b7c9a5cc35eab6bd7c08c29a41efe3d88d8c/api/stse_data_storage.h#L88-L112
- 主要语言
- C
- 星标
- 15
- 派生
- 12
- 平均合并
- 46 分钟
- 30 天内合并 PR
- 6
环境准备
- 没有 Dockerfile 或 Docker Compose 文件
- 有 Pull Request 模板
- 阅读贡献指南
从这里开始
- 先读完整个 Issue,再读项目的贡献指南。
- 在 Issue 下留言说明你要接手 —— 这能避免两个人做同样的事。
- Fork 仓库,在一个分支上完成修改。
- 提交 Pull Request,并在描述里引用这个 Issue 编号。
STMicroelectronics/STSELib 的其他 Issue
-
难度 3/5 1-2 天 新手友好度 65/100
STMicroelectronics/STSELib#115 ·
-
# Bug: `stse_perso_info_t` AC status 2-bit mask truncates valid AC values可能重新可做 @Grom- 于 215 天前认领,目前没有进行中的 PR。 未关闭bug
STMicroelectronics/STSELib#69 · 1 条评论 · 已指派 1 人 ·
-
`stse_platform_Crc16_Accumulate()` is not safe可能重新可做 @nils-cercariolo-st 于 203 天前认领,目前没有进行中的 PR。 未关闭
STMicroelectronics/STSELib#65 · 3 条评论 · 已指派 1 人 ·
-
STSAFE A120: Reprovisioning is successful, but returns error STSE_INVALID_C_MAC可能重新可做 @Grom- 于 346 天前认领,目前没有进行中的 PR。 未关闭bug
STMicroelectronics/STSELib#47 · 1 条评论 · 已指派 1 人 ·
查看 STMicroelectronics/STSELib 的全部 Issue
相似的 Issue
-
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 68/100
espressif/esp-vision#18 ·
-
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 61/100
HexaCluster/credcheck#94 ·
-
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 72/100
维护者通常 1 天内回复
-
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 72/100
维护者通常 1 天内回复
-
JS_SetPropertyInternal2 loses the value when a lazy property on the prototype runs out of memory未关闭
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 78/100
quickjs-ng/quickjs#1852 ·
维护者通常 2 天内回复