linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 3/8] remoteproc: Use u64 type for boot

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: <20200310193253.GL264362@yoga>
Date:   Tue, 10 Mar 2020 12:32:53 -0700
From:   Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To:     Cl?ment Leger <cleger@...rayinc.com>
Cc:     Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        linux-remoteproc <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@...com>,
        linux-doc <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@...com>,
        Loic PALLARDY <loic.pallardy@...com>, s-anna <s-anna@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/8] remoteproc: Use u64 type for boot_addr

On Tue 10 Mar 00:59 PDT 2020, Cl?ment Leger wrote:

> 
> 
> ----- On 9 Mar, 2020, at 20:52, Mathieu Poirier mathieu.poirier@...aro.org wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 10:38:57AM +0100, Clement Leger wrote:
> >> elf64 entry is defined as a u64. Since boot_addr is used to store the
> >> elf entry point, change boot_addr type to u64 to support both elf32
> >> and elf64. In the same time, fix users that were using this variable.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Clement Leger <cleger@...ray.eu>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_elf_loader.c | 2 +-
> >>  drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h   | 2 +-
> >>  drivers/remoteproc/st_remoteproc.c         | 2 +-
> >>  include/linux/remoteproc.h                 | 4 ++--
> >>  4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_elf_loader.c
> >> b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_elf_loader.c
> >> index 606aae166eba..c2a9783cfb9a 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_elf_loader.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_elf_loader.c
> >> @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(rproc_elf_sanity_check);
> >>   * Note that the boot address is not a configurable property of all remote
> >>   * processors. Some will always boot at a specific hard-coded address.
> >>   */
> >> -u32 rproc_elf_get_boot_addr(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> >> +u64 rproc_elf_get_boot_addr(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> >>  {
> >>  	struct elf32_hdr *ehdr  = (struct elf32_hdr *)fw->data;
> >>  
> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h
> >> b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h
> >> index 58580210575c..0deae5f237b8 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h
> >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h
> >> @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ phys_addr_t rproc_va_to_pa(void *cpu_addr);
> >>  int rproc_trigger_recovery(struct rproc *rproc);
> >>  
> >>  int rproc_elf_sanity_check(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw);
> >> -u32 rproc_elf_get_boot_addr(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw);
> >> +u64 rproc_elf_get_boot_addr(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw);
> >>  int rproc_elf_load_segments(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw);
> >>  int rproc_elf_load_rsc_table(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw);
> >>  struct resource_table *rproc_elf_find_loaded_rsc_table(struct rproc *rproc,
> > 
> > The return type of function rproc_get_boot_addr() should also be changed from
> > u32 to u64.  Or perhaps this is intentional to make sure rproc->bootaddr never
> > occupies more than 32bit?
> 
> No, this is a mistake clearly. I haven't been able to test with a 64 bit
> boot address since our remote processors always boot in the 32 bits
> space. But since the elf64 boot address is on 64 bitsn this was a logical
> modification. I will fix that.
> 

Sorry, I forgot to reply to this one. I fixed it up while applying the
patch.

Thanks,
Bjorn

> > 
> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/st_remoteproc.c
> >> b/drivers/remoteproc/st_remoteproc.c
> >> index ee13d23b43a9..a3268d95a50e 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/st_remoteproc.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/st_remoteproc.c
> >> @@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ static int st_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc)
> >>  		}
> >>  	}
> >>  
> >> -	dev_info(&rproc->dev, "Started from 0x%x\n", rproc->bootaddr);
> >> +	dev_info(&rproc->dev, "Started from 0x%llx\n", rproc->bootaddr);
> >>  
> >>  	return 0;
> >>  
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/remoteproc.h b/include/linux/remoteproc.h
> >> index bee559330204..1683d6c386a6 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/remoteproc.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/remoteproc.h
> >> @@ -382,7 +382,7 @@ struct rproc_ops {
> >>  				struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw);
> >>  	int (*load)(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw);
> >>  	int (*sanity_check)(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw);
> >> -	u32 (*get_boot_addr)(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw);
> >> +	u64 (*get_boot_addr)(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw);
> >>  };
> >>  
> >>  /**
> >> @@ -498,7 +498,7 @@ struct rproc {
> >>  	int num_traces;
> >>  	struct list_head carveouts;
> >>  	struct list_head mappings;
> >> -	u32 bootaddr;
> >> +	u64 bootaddr;
> >>  	struct list_head rvdevs;
> >>  	struct list_head subdevs;
> >>  	struct idr notifyids;
> >> --
> >> 2.15.0.276.g89ea799