linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v3 04/18] soc: qcom: Add Qualcomm minidump kernel 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 13 May 2023 21:16:31 -0700
From:   Trilok Soni <quic_tsoni@...cinc.com>
To:     Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        <agross@...nel.org>, <andersson@...nel.org>,
        <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>, <corbet@....net>,
        <keescook@...omium.org>, <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        <gpiccoli@...lia.com>, <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        <will@...nel.org>, <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>, <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
CC:     <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/18] soc: qcom: Add Qualcomm minidump kernel driver

On 5/8/2023 12:10 AM, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/4/2023 10:04 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 04/05/2023 17:21, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +    ret = qcom_minidump_init_apss_subsystem(md);
>>>>>> +    if (ret) {
>>>>>> +        dev_err(&pdev->dev, "apss minidump initialization failed: 
>>>>>> %d\n", ret);
>>>>>> +        goto unlock;
>>>>>> +    }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +    __md = md;
>>>>>
>>>>> No. This is a platform device, so it can have multiple instances.
>>>>
>>>> It can have only one instance that is created from SMEM driver probe.
>>>
>>> Anyone can instantiate more of them.... how did you solve it?
>>
>> To clarify - sprinkling more of singletons makes everything tightly
>> coupled, difficult to debug and non-portable. You cannot have two
>> instances, you have to control concurrent initialization by yourself in
>> each of such singletons.
>>
>> I understand sometimes they are unavoidable, for example when this does
>> not map to hardware property. However here you have the parent - smem -
>> which can return you valid instance. Thus you avoid entire problem of
>> file-scope variables.
> 
> I get your point, why one's should avoid file scope variables.
> 
> 
> This is infrastructure driver and will not have multiple instances and 
> even if it happens could be avoided with with the help of global mutex 
> and protect below function which i am already doing at the moment and 
> fail the other probe if it is already initialized with proper logging..e.g

Another way to think here is what if you have chiplets? Two SOCs looks 
like one as a product? How does your driver will behave in those cases?

---Trilok Soni