linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv6 3/3] iommu: arm-smmu-impl: Add sdm845 implementation hook

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8268c9b4002f6b9b1c87fcc16920f57f@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Fri, 20 Sep 2019 13:24:09 +0530
From:   Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org>
To:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Cc:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-arm-msm-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 3/3] iommu: arm-smmu-impl: Add sdm845 implementation
 hook

On 2019-09-20 01:30, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Sai Prakash Ranjan (2019-09-19 11:54:27)
>> On 2019-09-19 08:48, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>> > On 2019-09-19 05:55, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>> >> In the transition to this new design we lost the ability to
>> >> enable/disable the safe toggle per board, which according to Vivek
>> >> would result in some issue with Cheza.
>> >>
>> >> Can you confirm that this is okay? (Or introduce the DT property for
>> >> enabling the safe_toggle logic?)
>> >>
>> >
>> > Hmm, I don't remember Vivek telling about any issue on Cheza because
>> > of this logic.
>> > But I will test this on Cheza and let you know.
>> >
>> 
>> I tested this on Cheza and no perf degradation nor any other issue is
>> seen
>> atleast openly, although I see this below stack dump always with
>> cant_sleep change added.
> 
> The usage of cant_sleep() here is wrong then, and the comment should be
> removed from the scm API as well because it looks like it's perfectly 
> OK
> to call the function from a context that can sleep.
> 

Looking more into this downstream, it says this *can be called in atomic 
context*
and not *should be called only in atomic context*. So will remove 
cant_sleep and
modify the comment accordingly.

-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a 
member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation