linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mailbox: add STMicroelectronics STM32 IPCC driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 9 Apr 2018 15:40:10 +0530
From:   Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>
To:     Fabien DESSENNE <fabien.dessenne@...com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        Alexandre TORGUE <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
        Ludovic BARRE <ludovic.barre@...com>,
        Devicetree List <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
        srv_heupstream <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...aro.org>,
        Loic PALLARDY <loic.pallardy@...com>,
        Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@...com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mailbox: add STMicroelectronics STM32 IPCC driver

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 2:33 PM, Fabien DESSENNE <fabien.dessenne@...com> wrote:
>
>
> On 06/04/18 18:20, Jassi Brar wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 8:35 PM, Fabien DESSENNE <fabien.dessenne@...com> wrote:
>>> On 06/04/18 14:56, Jassi Brar wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Fabien DESSENNE <fabien.dessenne@...com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/04/18 11:38, Jassi Brar wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:28 PM, Fabien Dessenne <fabien.dessenne@...com> wrote:
>>>>>> ....
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +       /* irq */
>>>>>>> +       for (i = 0; i < IPCC_IRQ_NUM; i++) {
>>>>>>> +               ipcc->irqs[i] = of_irq_get_byname(dev->of_node, irq_name[i]);
>>>>>>> +               if (ipcc->irqs[i] < 0) {
>>>>>>> +                       dev_err(dev, "no IRQ specified %s\n", irq_name[i]);
>>>>>>> +                       ret = ipcc->irqs[i];
>>>>>>> +                       goto err_clk;
>>>>>>> +               }
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +               ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(dev, ipcc->irqs[i], NULL,
>>>>>>> +                                               irq_thread[i], IRQF_ONESHOT,
>>>>>>> +                                               dev_name(dev), ipcc);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> In your interrupt handlers you don't do anything that could block.
>>>>>> Threads only adds some delay to your message handling.
>>>>>> So maybe use devm_request_irq() ?
>>>>> The interrupt handlers call mbox_chan_received_data() /
>>>>> mbox_chan_txdone(), which call in turn client's rx_callback() /
>>>>> tx_done() / tx_prepare() which behavior may be unsafe. Hence, using a
>>>>> threaded irq here seems to be a good choice.
>>>>>
>>>> rx_callback() is supposed to be atomic.
>>> I am worried with this atomic part (and honestly I did not note that the
>>> callbacks were expected to be)
>>>
>>> In my case, remoteproc->virtio->rpmsg is the mailbox client defining the
>>> rx_callback.
>>> If I follow your suggestion, I shall make this rx_callback Atomic in
>>> remoteproc (or in virtio or rpmsg). And this does not seem to be so
>>> simple (add a worker in the middle of somewhere?). Bjorn, feel free to
>>> comment this part.
>>>
>>> An alternate implementation consists in using a threaded IRQ for the
>>> mailbox interrupt.
>>> This option is not only simple, but also ensures to split bottom & half
>>> parts at the irq level which is IMHO a general good practice.
>>>
>>> I can see that some mailbox clients implement callbacks that are NOT
>>> atomic and I suspect this is the reason why some mailbox drivers use
>>> threaded_irq (rockchip mailbox splits the bottom & half parts).
>>>
>>> Would it be acceptable to consider the "atomic client callback" as a
>>> non-strict rule ?
>>>
>> Of course you can traverse atomic path from sleepable context (but not
>> vice-versa).
>
> So, to be sure we understand each other, I can use threaded_irq, right?
>
Yes. Its platform specific driver, I can't dictate the features you want :)