linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 5/9] remoteproc: Introducing function rproc

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: <5f81f8cb-bf29-40cb-57e1-918e0d997431@st.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Jul 2020 10:32:51 +0200
From:   Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@...com>
To:     Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        "ohad@...ery.com" <ohad@...ery.com>,
        "bjorn.andersson@...aro.org" <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
CC:     "linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/9] remoteproc: Introducing function rproc_validate()



On 7/7/20 11:00 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> Add a new function to assert the general health of the remote
> processor before handing it to the remoteproc core.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>

Reviewed-by: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@...com>

Thanks,
Arnaud

> ---
>  drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 41 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> index fd424662801f..ad500c291d5f 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> @@ -2040,6 +2040,43 @@ struct rproc *rproc_get_by_phandle(phandle phandle)
>  #endif
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(rproc_get_by_phandle);
>  
> +static int rproc_validate(struct rproc *rproc)
> +{
> +	switch (rproc->state) {
> +	case RPROC_OFFLINE:
> +		/*
> +		 * An offline processor without a start()
> +		 * function makes no sense.
> +		 */
> +		if (!rproc->ops->start)
> +			return -EINVAL;
> +		break;
> +	case RPROC_DETACHED:
> +		/*
> +		 * A remote processor in a detached state without an
> +		 * attach() function makes not sense.
> +		 */
> +		if (!rproc->ops->attach)
> +			return -EINVAL;
> +		/*
> +		 * When attaching to a remote processor the device memory
> +		 * is already available and as such there is no need to have a
> +		 * cached table.
> +		 */
> +		if (rproc->cached_table)
> +			return -EINVAL;
> +		break;
> +	default:
> +		/*
> +		 * When adding a remote processor, the state of the device
> +		 * can be offline or detached, nothing else.
> +		 */
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  /**
>   * rproc_add() - register a remote processor
>   * @rproc: the remote processor handle to register
> @@ -2069,6 +2106,10 @@ int rproc_add(struct rproc *rproc)
>  	if (ret < 0)
>  		return ret;
>  
> +	ret = rproc_validate(rproc);
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		return ret;
> +
>  	dev_info(dev, "%s is available\n", rproc->name);
>  
>  	/* create debugfs entries */
>