linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PCI: dwc: layerscape: convert to builtin_platform

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: <CAGETcx-0G-Y8wT_+BfP5vbi0gW6KonwgoJ6DdqjaGbFkutTGag@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Jan 2021 16:44:17 -0800
From:   Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Roy Zang <roy.zang@....com>, PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Minghuan Lian <minghuan.Lian@....com>,
        Mingkai Hu <mingkai.hu@....com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: dwc: layerscape: convert to builtin_platform_driver()

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:50 AM Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Saravana,
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:42 PM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:49 AM Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc> wrote:
> > > Am 2021-01-21 12:01, schrieb Geert Uytterhoeven:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 1:05 AM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 3:53 PM Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > Am 2021-01-20 20:47, schrieb Saravana Kannan:
> > > >> > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 11:28 AM Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> [RESEND, fat-fingered the buttons of my mail client and converted
> > > >> > >> all CCs to BCCs :(]
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Am 2021-01-20 20:02, schrieb Saravana Kannan:
> > > >> > >> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:24 AM Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > >> > >> >>
> > > >> > >> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 4:53 AM Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
> > > >> > >> >> wrote:
> > > >> > >> >> >
> > > >> > >> >> > fw_devlink will defer the probe until all suppliers are ready. We can't
> > > >> > >> >> > use builtin_platform_driver_probe() because it doesn't retry after probe
> > > >> > >> >> > deferral. Convert it to builtin_platform_driver().
> > > >> > >> >>
> > > >> > >> >> If builtin_platform_driver_probe() doesn't work with fw_devlink, then
> > > >> > >> >> shouldn't it be fixed or removed?
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > I was actually thinking about this too. The problem with fixing
> > > >> > >> > builtin_platform_driver_probe() to behave like
> > > >> > >> > builtin_platform_driver() is that these probe functions could be
> > > >> > >> > marked with __init. But there are also only 20 instances of
> > > >> > >> > builtin_platform_driver_probe() in the kernel:
> > > >> > >> > $ git grep ^builtin_platform_driver_probe | wc -l
> > > >> > >> > 20
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > So it might be easier to just fix them to not use
> > > >> > >> > builtin_platform_driver_probe().
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > Michael,
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > Any chance you'd be willing to help me by converting all these to
> > > >> > >> > builtin_platform_driver() and delete builtin_platform_driver_probe()?
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> If it just moving the probe function to the _driver struct and
> > > >> > >> remove the __init annotations. I could look into that.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Yup. That's pretty much it AFAICT.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > builtin_platform_driver_probe() also makes sure the driver doesn't ask
> > > >> > > for async probe, etc. But I doubt anyone is actually setting async
> > > >> > > flags and still using builtin_platform_driver_probe().
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Hasn't module_platform_driver_probe() the same problem? And there
> > > >> > are ~80 drivers which uses that.
> > > >>
> > > >> Yeah. The biggest problem with all of these is the __init markers.
> > > >> Maybe some familiar with coccinelle can help?
> > > >
> > > > And dropping them will increase memory usage.
> > >
> > > Although I do have the changes for the builtin_platform_driver_probe()
> > > ready, I don't think it makes much sense to send these unless we agree
> > > on the increased memory footprint. While there are just a few
> > > builtin_platform_driver_probe() and memory increase _might_ be
> > > negligible, there are many more module_platform_driver_probe().
> >
> > While it's good to drop code that'll not be used past kernel init, the
> > module_platform_driver_probe() is going even more extreme. It doesn't
> > even allow deferred probe (well before kernel init is done). I don't
> > think that behavior is right and that's why we should delete it. Also,
>
> This construct is typically used for builtin hardware for which the
> dependencies are registered very early, and thus known to probe at
> first try (if present).
>
> > I doubt if any of these probe functions even take up 4KB of memory.
>
> How many 4 KiB pages do you have in a system with 10 MiB of SRAM?
> How many can you afford to waste?

There are only a few instances of this macro in the kernel. How many
of those actually fit the description above? We can probably just
check the DT?

-Saravana