linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] soc: qcom: Introduce APCS IPC 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, 6 May 2017 01:52:43 +0530
From:   Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>
To:     Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        Devicetree List <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] soc: qcom: Introduce APCS IPC driver

On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> On 5/5/2017 1:22 PM, Jassi Brar wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 12:07 AM, Bjorn Andersson
>> <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org> wrote:
>>>
>
> There is no way to determine if the remote processor has observed a message,
> that does not involve pretty trivial race conditions.
>
Thanks for chiming in.
How is it supposed to work if a client queues more than one request?
How do you know when it's ok to overwrite the FIFO and send the next
command?
  Usually if h/w doesn't indicate, we cook up some ack packet for each
command. Otherwise the protocol seems badly broken.

 If there is really nothing that can be done to check delivery of a
message, I'll pick the driver as such. Best of luck :)