linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] ath11k: set register access length for MHI driver

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: <37184e28dcc952ba9ad5ed0dc2c1a6da@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Mon, 14 Jun 2021 10:49:51 -0700
From:   Bhaumik Bhatt <bbhatt@...eaurora.org>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, hemantk@...eaurora.org,
        jhugo@...eaurora.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        loic.poulain@...aro.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        ath11k@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] ath11k: set register access length for MHI driver

Hi Kalle,

On 2021-06-14 09:02 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org> writes:
> 
>> On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 12:51:43PM -0700, Bhaumik Bhatt wrote:
>>> MHI driver requires register space length to add range checks and
>>> prevent memory region accesses outside of that for MMIO space.
>>> Set it before registering the MHI controller.
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Bhaumik Bhatt <bbhatt@...eaurora.org>
>>> Reviewed-by: Hemant Kumar <hemantk@...eaurora.org>
>> 
>> Reviewed-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
>> 
>> Kalle, should we do immutable branch for this patch or I can pick it 
>> up via MHI
>> tree (if there are no other patches expected from ath11k for this 
>> controller)?
> 
> I'm not expecting any conflicts with this, and if there are, they 
> should
> be easy for Stephen or Linus to fix. So it's easiest to route this via
> your tree. But I'm not giving my ack yet, see below.
> 
> I'm worried that this patchset breaks bisect. Every patch in the
> patchset should not break existing functionality, what if only patches
> 1-3 are included in the tree but not patch 4? Wouldn't ath11k be broken
> then? I didn't review the whole patchset, but I suspect the fix is to
> include the ath11k change in the actual mhi patch which changes the
> functionality. So that way we would not have a separate ath11k patch at
> all.
> 
> Also I'm not able to test this patchset at the moment. Can someone else
> help and do a quick test with QCA6390 to verify these doesn't break
> ath11k?

I have requested someone to try and test this patch series with QCA6390.

I or the testers will get back to you with the test results when they 
are
available.

As far as your concerns go, you can choose to pick patches 1-3 and that 
would
be just fine.

Things will break if patchset 4 is _not_ in place with patchset 6 being 
part of
the tree.

It would, however, be nice to pick the whole series instead and ensure 
that
the functionality MHI introduces for boot-up sanity is in place for any
controllers such as ath11k.

Thanks,
Bhaumik
---
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora 
Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project