linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rpmsg: virtio_rpmsg_bus: acknowledge the received creation message

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:   Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:44:48 +0100
From:   Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@...com>
To:     Xiang Xiao <xiaoxiang781216@...il.com>, <ohad@...ery.com>,
        <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>, <wendy.liang@...inx.com>,
        <kumar.gala@...aro.org>, <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     QianWenfa <qianwenfa@...omi.com>, Xiang Xiao <xiaoxiang@...omi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rpmsg: virtio_rpmsg_bus: acknowledge the received
 creation message

Hello Xiang,



On 2/12/19 8:13 AM, Xiang Xiao wrote:
> From: QianWenfa <qianwenfa@...omi.com>
> 
> the two phase handsake make the client could initiate the transfer
> immediately without the server side send any dummy message first.
As discussed on OpenAMP mailing list, the first point (from my pov) is
to figure out if this should be part of the rpmsg protocol or service
dependent (so managed by the rpmsg client itself)...


> 
> Signed-off-by: Wenfa Qian <qianwenfa@...omi.com>
> Signed-off-by: Xiang Xiao <xiaoxiang@...omi.com>
> ---
>  drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c b/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c
> index 664f957..e323c98 100644
> --- a/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c
> +++ b/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c
> @@ -71,6 +71,7 @@ struct virtproc_info {
>  
>  /* The feature bitmap for virtio rpmsg */
>  #define VIRTIO_RPMSG_F_NS	0 /* RP supports name service notifications */
> +#define VIRTIO_RPMSG_F_ACK	1 /* RP supports name service acknowledge */
>  
>  /**
>   * struct rpmsg_hdr - common header for all rpmsg messages
> @@ -115,10 +116,12 @@ struct rpmsg_ns_msg {
>   *
>   * @RPMSG_NS_CREATE: a new remote service was just created
>   * @RPMSG_NS_DESTROY: a known remote service was just destroyed
> + * @RPMSG_NS_ACK: acknowledge the previous creation message
>   */
>  enum rpmsg_ns_flags {
>  	RPMSG_NS_CREATE		= 0,
>  	RPMSG_NS_DESTROY	= 1,
> +	RPMSG_NS_ACK		= 2,
>  };
>  
>  /**
> @@ -330,13 +333,14 @@ static int virtio_rpmsg_announce_create(struct rpmsg_device *rpdev)
>  	int err = 0;
>  
>  	/* need to tell remote processor's name service about this channel ? */
> -	if (rpdev->announce && rpdev->ept &&
> +	if (rpdev->ept && (rpdev->announce ||
> +	    virtio_has_feature(vrp->vdev, VIRTIO_RPMSG_F_ACK)) &&
>  	    virtio_has_feature(vrp->vdev, VIRTIO_RPMSG_F_NS)) {Regarding this condition i have a concern. If rpdev->announce is false
but  VIRTIO_RPMSG_F_ACK feature is set, this should generate an ack message.
Seems that this condition can occurs depending on the rpmsg_device
struct provided on registration, when rpmsg_dev_probe is called.

>  		struct rpmsg_ns_msg nsm;
>  
>  		strncpy(nsm.name, rpdev->id.name, RPMSG_NAME_SIZE);
>  		nsm.addr = rpdev->ept->addr;
> -		nsm.flags = RPMSG_NS_CREATE;
> +		nsm.flags = rpdev->announce ? RPMSG_NS_CREATE : RPMSG_NS_ACK;
>  
>  		err = rpmsg_sendto(rpdev->ept, &nsm, sizeof(nsm), RPMSG_NS_ADDR);
>  		if (err)
> @@ -820,6 +824,7 @@ static int rpmsg_ns_cb(struct rpmsg_device *rpdev, void *data, int len,
>  	struct rpmsg_channel_info chinfo;
>  	struct virtproc_info *vrp = priv;
>  	struct device *dev = &vrp->vdev->dev;
> +	struct device *tmp;
>  	int ret;
>  
>  #if defined(CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG)
> @@ -847,21 +852,30 @@ static int rpmsg_ns_cb(struct rpmsg_device *rpdev, void *data, int len,
>  	msg->name[RPMSG_NAME_SIZE - 1] = '\0';
>  
>  	dev_info(dev, "%sing channel %s addr 0x%x\n",
> -		 msg->flags & RPMSG_NS_DESTROY ? "destroy" : "creat",
> +		 msg->flags == RPMSG_NS_ACK ? "ack" :
> +		 msg->flags == RPMSG_NS_DESTROY ? "destroy" : "creat",
>  		 msg->name, msg->addr);
>  
>  	strncpy(chinfo.name, msg->name, sizeof(chinfo.name));
>  	chinfo.src = RPMSG_ADDR_ANY;
>  	chinfo.dst = msg->addr;
>  
> -	if (msg->flags & RPMSG_NS_DESTROY) {
> +	if (msg->flags == RPMSG_NS_DESTROY) {
>  		ret = rpmsg_unregister_device(&vrp->vdev->dev, &chinfo);
>  		if (ret)
>  			dev_err(dev, "rpmsg_destroy_channel failed: %d\n", ret);
> -	} else {
> +	} else if (msg->flags == RPMSG_NS_CREATE) {
>  		newch = rpmsg_create_channel(vrp, &chinfo);
>  		if (!newch)
>  			dev_err(dev, "rpmsg_create_channel failed\n");
> +	} else if (msg->flags == RPMSG_NS_ACK) {
> +		chinfo.dst = RPMSG_ADDR_ANY;
> +		tmp = rpmsg_find_device(&vrp->vdev->dev, &chinfo);
nit-picking... replace &vrp->vdev->dev by dev and change tmp by a more
explicit name.
> +		if (tmp) {
> +			newch = to_rpmsg_device(tmp);
> +			newch->dst = msg->addr;
> +		} else
typo: braces

Regards,
Arnaud
> +			dev_err(dev, "rpmsg_find_device failed\n");
>  	}
>  
>  	return 0;
> @@ -1028,6 +1042,7 @@ static struct virtio_device_id id_table[] = {
>  
>  static unsigned int features[] = {
>  	VIRTIO_RPMSG_F_NS,
> +	VIRTIO_RPMSG_F_ACK,
>  };
>  
>  static struct virtio_driver virtio_ipc_driver = {
>