linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] net: introduce Qualcomm IPA 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: <d76a710d45dd7df3a28afb12fc62cf14@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Fri, 31 May 2019 17:59:43 -0600
From:   Subash Abhinov Kasiviswanathan <subashab@...eaurora.org>
To:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
Cc:     Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Dan Williams <dcbw@...hat.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
        evgreen@...omium.org, Ben Chan <benchan@...gle.com>,
        Eric Caruso <ejcaruso@...gle.com>, cpratapa@...eaurora.org,
        syadagir@...eaurora.org, abhishek.esse@...il.com,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] net: introduce Qualcomm IPA driver

On 2019-05-31 17:33, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Fri 31 May 13:47 PDT 2019, Alex Elder wrote:
> 
>> On 5/31/19 2:19 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 6:36 PM Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org> wrote:
>> >> On 5/31/19 9:58 AM, Dan Williams wrote:
>> >>> On Thu, 2019-05-30 at 22:53 -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> My question from the Nov 2018 IPA rmnet driver still stands; how does
>> >>> this relate to net/ethernet/qualcomm/rmnet/ if at all? And if this is
>> >>> really just a netdev talking to the IPA itself and unrelated to
>> >>> net/ethernet/qualcomm/rmnet, let's call it "ipa%d" and stop cargo-
>> >>> culting rmnet around just because it happens to be a net driver for a
>> >>> QC SoC.
>> >>
>> >> First, the relationship between the IPA driver and the rmnet driver
>> >> is that the IPA driver is assumed to sit between the rmnet driver
>> >> and the hardware.
>> >
>> > Does this mean that IPA can only be used to back rmnet, and rmnet
>> > can only be used on top of IPA, or can or both of them be combined
>> > with another driver to talk to instead?
>> 
>> No it does not mean that.
>> 
>> As I understand it, one reason for the rmnet layer was to abstract
>> the back end, which would allow using a modem, or using something
>> else (a LAN?), without exposing certain details of the hardware.
>> (Perhaps to support multiplexing, etc. without duplicating that
>> logic in two "back-end" drivers?)
>> 
>> To be perfectly honest, at first I thought having IPA use rmnet
>> was a cargo cult thing like Dan suggested, because I didn't see
>> the benefit.  I now see why one would use that pass-through layer
>> to handle the QMAP features.
>> 
>> But back to your question.  The other thing is that I see no
>> reason the IPA couldn't present a "normal" (non QMAP) interface
>> for a modem.  It's something I'd really like to be able to do,
>> but I can't do it without having the modem firmware change its
>> configuration for these endpoints.  My access to the people who
>> implement the modem firmware has been very limited (something
>> I hope to improve), and unless and until I can get corresponding
>> changes on the modem side to implement connections that don't
>> use QMAP, I can't implement such a thing.
>> 
> 
> But any such changes would either be years into the future or for
> specific devices and as such not applicable to any/most of devices on
> the market now or in the coming years.
> 
> 
> But as Arnd points out, if the software split between IPA and rmnet is
> suboptimal your are encouraged to fix that.
> 
> Regards,
> Bjorn

The split rmnet design was chosen because we could place rmnet
over any transport - IPA, PCIe (https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/26/1159)
or USB.

rmnet registers a rx handler, so the rmnet packet processing itself
happens in the same softirq when packets are queued to network stack
by IPA.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project