linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] drm: msm: a6xx: fix gpu failure after system resume

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: <CAF6AEGvY9qxpi8rqL4Lef+Qs1yc20K3jEewK+9mWuTdhkLDKkA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Jul 2020 13:24:54 -0700
From:   Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     Akhil P Oommen <akhilpo@...eaurora.org>,
        freedreno <freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        dri-devel@...edesktop.org,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drm: msm: a6xx: fix gpu failure after system resume

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:39 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 7:46 AM Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 08:04:18PM +0530, Akhil P Oommen wrote:
> > > On targets where GMU is available, GMU takes over the ownership of GX GDSC
> > > during its initialization. So, move the refcount-get on GX PD before we
> > > initialize the GMU. This ensures that nobody can collapse the GX GDSC
> > > once GMU owns the GX GDSC. This patch fixes some GMU OOB errors seen
> > > during GPU wake up during a system resume.
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Akhil P Oommen <akhilpo@...eaurora.org>
> > > Reported-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
> > > Tested-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
> >
> > The Signed-off-by needs to be at the end but I think Rob can do that for you.
>
> It does?  I've always been told that this is supposed to be roughly a
> log of what happens.  In that sense you added your SoB before the
> review/test happened so it should come before.  I know some
> maintainers seem to do things differently but that seems to be the
> most common.  In that sense, I think the order that Akhil has is
> correct.  ...but, obviously, it's up to the maintainer.  ;-)

yeah, I chronological order was my understanding too.. but presumably
the Reported-by happened before the Signed-of-by (which is how I
reordered things when applying the patch)

BR,
-R