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  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:   Thu, 13 Feb 2020 20:57:25 -0800
From:   Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Cc:     Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Sibi Sankar <sibis@...eaurora.org>,
        Rishabh Bhatnagar <rishabhb@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/8] remoteproc: qcom: Introduce driver to store pil
 info in IMEM

On Thu 13 Feb 18:35 PST 2020, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2020-02-10 16:50:53)
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_pil_info.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_pil_info.c
[..]
> > +       mutex_lock(&reloc_mutex);
> > +       _reloc = reloc;
> > +       mutex_unlock(&reloc_mutex);
> 
> Ah ok, I see that mutex is protecting the pointer used for everything.
> Ignore the comment above. But also, why not have every remoteproc device
> point at some imem and then search through the imem for the name? Then
> we don't need this driver or a lock that synchronizes these things.
> Ideally we could dedicate a place in imem for each remoteproc and not
> even have to search it for the string to update. Is that possible? Then
> it becomes even simpler because the DT binding can point directly at the
> address to write. It's not like the various images are changing that
> much to the point where this location in imem is actually changing,
> right?
> 

I will check to see if these entries needs to be packed in the beginning
of the array, otherwise this sounds like a good idea to simplify things.

Regards,
Bjorn

Powered by blists - more mailing lists