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

Message-ID: <d9b30262-3b0b-1b46-dee7-ee1a4b77e66e@st.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 Apr 2018 09:03:25 +0000
From:   Fabien DESSENNE <fabien.dessenne@...com>
To:     Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.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 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?

> Please send in the final revision.
>
> Thanks.