linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 10/14] remoteproc: Deal with synchronisation when shutting down

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: <04b8f860-2b01-7e4f-cdea-08a3cf8af26c@st.com>
Date:   Mon, 4 May 2020 13:34:43 +0200
From:   Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@...com>
To:     Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
CC:     <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>, <ohad@...ery.com>,
        <loic.pallardy@...com>, <s-anna@...com>,
        <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>, <corbet@....net>,
        <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/14] remoteproc: Deal with synchronisation when
 shutting down



On 4/30/20 10:23 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 10:19:49AM +0200, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4/24/20 10:01 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>>> The remoteproc core must not allow function rproc_shutdown() to
>>> proceed if currently synchronising with a remote processor and
>>> the synchronisation operations of that remote processor does not
>>> support it.  Also part of the process is to set the synchronisation
>>> flag so that the remoteproc core can make the right decisions when
>>> restarting the system.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c     | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h |  7 ++++++
>>>  2 files changed, 39 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>>> index 3a84a38ba37b..48afa1f80a8f 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>>> @@ -1849,6 +1849,27 @@ int rproc_boot(struct rproc *rproc)
>>>  }
>>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(rproc_boot);
>>>  
>>> +static bool rproc_can_shutdown(struct rproc *rproc)
>>> +{
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * The remoteproc core is the lifecycle manager, no problem
>>> +	 * calling for a shutdown.
>>> +	 */
>>> +	if (!rproc_needs_syncing(rproc))
>>> +		return true;
>>> +
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * The remoteproc has been loaded by another entity (as per above
>>> +	 * condition) and the platform code has given us the capability
>>> +	 * of stopping it.
>>> +	 */
>>> +	if (rproc->sync_ops->stop)
>>> +		return true;
>>
>> This means that if rproc->sync_ops->stop is null rproc_stop_subdevices will not
>> be called? seems not symmetric with the start sequence.
> 
> If rproc->sync_ops->stop is not provided then the remoteproc core can't stop the
> remote processor at all after it has synchronised with it.  If a usecase
> requires some kind of soft reset then a stop() function that uses a mailbox
> notification or some other mechanism can be provided to tell the remote
> processor to put itself back in startup mode again.
> 
> Is this fine with you or there is still something I don't get?

My point here is more around the subdevices. But perhaps i missed something...

In rproc_start rproc_start_subdevices is called, even if sync_start is null.
But in rproc_shutdown rproc_stop is not called, if sync_ops->stop is null.
So rproc_stop_subdevices is not called in this case.
Then if sync_flags.after_stop is false, it looks like that something will go wrong
at next start.

> 
>> Probably not useful to test it here as condition is already handled in rproc_stop_device...
>>
>> Regards
>> Arnaud
>>> +
>>> +	/* Any other condition should not be allowed */
>>> +	return false;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>  /**
>>>   * rproc_shutdown() - power off the remote processor
>>>   * @rproc: the remote processor
>>> @@ -1879,6 +1900,9 @@ void rproc_shutdown(struct rproc *rproc)
>>>  		return;
>>>  	}
>>>  
>>> +	if (!rproc_can_shutdown(rproc))
>>> +		goto out;
>>> +
>>>  	/* if the remote proc is still needed, bail out */
>>>  	if (!atomic_dec_and_test(&rproc->power))
>>>  		goto out;
>>> @@ -1898,6 +1922,14 @@ void rproc_shutdown(struct rproc *rproc)
>>>  	kfree(rproc->cached_table);
>>>  	rproc->cached_table = NULL;
>>>  	rproc->table_ptr = NULL;
>>> +
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * The remote processor has been switched off - tell the core what
>>> +	 * operation to use from hereon, i.e whether an external entity will
>>> +	 * reboot the remote processor or it is now the remoteproc core's
>>> +	 * responsability.
>>> +	 */
>>> +	rproc_set_sync_flag(rproc, RPROC_SYNC_STATE_SHUTDOWN);
>>>  out:
>>>  	mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
>>>  }
>>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h
>>> index 61500981155c..7dcc0a26892b 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h
>>> @@ -27,6 +27,9 @@ struct rproc_debug_trace {
>>>  /*
>>>   * enum rproc_sync_states - remote processsor sync states
>>>   *
>>> + * @RPROC_SYNC_STATE_SHUTDOWN	state to use after the remoteproc core
>>> + *				has shutdown (rproc_shutdown()) the
>>> + *				remote processor.
>>>   * @RPROC_SYNC_STATE_CRASHED	state to use after the remote processor
>>>   *				has crashed but has not been recovered by
>>>   *				the remoteproc core yet.
>>> @@ -36,6 +39,7 @@ struct rproc_debug_trace {
>>>   * operation to use.
>>>   */
>>>  enum rproc_sync_states {
>>> +	RPROC_SYNC_STATE_SHUTDOWN,
>>>  	RPROC_SYNC_STATE_CRASHED,
>>>  };
>>>  
>>> @@ -43,6 +47,9 @@ static inline void rproc_set_sync_flag(struct rproc *rproc,
>>>  				       enum rproc_sync_states state)
>>>  {
>>>  	switch (state) {
>>> +	case RPROC_SYNC_STATE_SHUTDOWN:
>>> +		rproc->sync_with_rproc = rproc->sync_flags.after_stop;
>>> +		break;
>>>  	case RPROC_SYNC_STATE_CRASHED:
>>>  		rproc->sync_with_rproc = rproc->sync_flags.after_crash;
>>>  		break;
>>>