linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 02/14] remoteproc: Introduce function rproc_alloc

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]

Date:   Tue, 5 May 2020 15:31:58 -0700
From:   Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To:     Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
Cc:     ohad@...ery.com, loic.pallardy@...com, arnaud.pouliquen@...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 02/14] remoteproc: Introduce function
 rproc_alloc_internals()

On Fri 24 Apr 13:01 PDT 2020, Mathieu Poirier wrote:

> In scenarios where the remote processor's lifecycle is entirely
> managed by another entity there is no point in allocating memory for
> a firmware name since it will never be used.  The same goes for a core
> set of operations.
> 
> As such introduce function rproc_alloc_internals() to decide if the
> allocation of a firmware name and the core operations need to be done.
> That way rproc_alloc() can be kept as clean as possible.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> index 448262470fc7..1b4756909584 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> @@ -2076,6 +2076,30 @@ static int rproc_alloc_ops(struct rproc *rproc, const struct rproc_ops *ops)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static int rproc_alloc_internals(struct rproc *rproc,
> +				 const struct rproc_ops *ops,
> +				 const char *name, const char *firmware)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * In scenarios where the remote processor's lifecycle is entirely
> +	 * managed by another entity there is no point in carrying a set
> +	 * of operations that will never be used.
> +	 *
> +	 * And since no firmware will ever be loaded, there is no point in
> +	 * allocating memory for it either.

While this is true, I would expect that there are cases where the
remoteproc has ops but no firmware.

How about splitting this decision already now; i.e. moving the if(!ops)
to rproc_alloc_ops() and perhaps only allocate firmware if ops->load is
specified?

Regards,
Bjorn

> +	 */
> +	if (!ops)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	ret = rproc_alloc_firmware(rproc, name, firmware);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	return rproc_alloc_ops(rproc, ops);
> +}
> +
>  /**
>   * rproc_alloc() - allocate a remote processor handle
>   * @dev: the underlying device
> @@ -2105,7 +2129,7 @@ struct rproc *rproc_alloc(struct device *dev, const char *name,
>  {
>  	struct rproc *rproc;
>  
> -	if (!dev || !name || !ops)
> +	if (!dev || !name)
>  		return NULL;
>  
>  	rproc = kzalloc(sizeof(struct rproc) + len, GFP_KERNEL);
> @@ -2128,10 +2152,7 @@ struct rproc *rproc_alloc(struct device *dev, const char *name,
>  	if (!rproc->name)
>  		goto put_device;
>  
> -	if (rproc_alloc_firmware(rproc, name, firmware))
> -		goto put_device;
> -
> -	if (rproc_alloc_ops(rproc, ops))
> +	if (rproc_alloc_internals(rproc, ops, name, firmware))
>  		goto put_device;
>  
>  	/* Assign a unique device index and name */
> -- 
> 2.20.1
>