[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210630204823.GC1290178@p14s>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 14:48:23 -0600
From: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
To: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@...s.st.com>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>,
linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com, julien.massot@....bzh
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] rpmsg: char: Add possibility to use default
endpoint of the rpmsg device.
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 05:05:03PM +0200, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote:
> Current implementation create/destroy a new endpoint on each
> rpmsg_eptdev_open/rpmsg_eptdev_release calls.
>
> For a rpmsg device created by the NS announcement mechanism we need to
> use a unique static endpoint that is the default rpmsg device endpoint
> associated to the channel.
>
> This patch prepares the introduction of a rpmsg channel device for the
> char device. The rpmsg channel device will require a default endpoint to
> communicate to the remote processor.
>
> Add the static_ept field in rpmsg_eptdev structure. This boolean
> determines the behavior on rpmsg_eptdev_open and rpmsg_eptdev_release call.
>
> - If static_ept == false:
> Use the legacy behavior by creating a new endpoint each time
> rpmsg_eptdev_open is called and release it when rpmsg_eptdev_release
> is called on /dev/rpmsgX device open/close.
>
> - If static_ept == true:
> use the rpmsg device default endpoint for the communication.
> - Address the update of _rpmsg_chrdev_eptdev_create in e separate patch for readability.
>
> Add protection in rpmsg_eptdev_ioctl to prevent to destroy a default endpoint.
>
> Signed-off-by: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@...s.st.com>
> ---
> update vs V1:
> - remove the management of the default endpoint creation from rpmsg_eptdev_open.
>
> ---
> drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_char.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_char.c b/drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_char.c
> index 50b7d4b00175..a75dce1e29d8 100644
> --- a/drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_char.c
> +++ b/drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_char.c
> @@ -45,6 +45,8 @@ static DEFINE_IDA(rpmsg_minor_ida);
> * @queue_lock: synchronization of @queue operations
> * @queue: incoming message queue
> * @readq: wait object for incoming queue
> + * @static_ept: specify if the endpoint has to be created at each device opening or
> + * if the default endpoint should be used.
> */
> struct rpmsg_eptdev {
> struct device dev;
> @@ -59,6 +61,8 @@ struct rpmsg_eptdev {
> spinlock_t queue_lock;
> struct sk_buff_head queue;
> wait_queue_head_t readq;
> +
> + bool static_ept;
> };
>
> int rpmsg_chrdev_eptdev_destroy(struct device *dev, void *data)
> @@ -116,7 +120,15 @@ static int rpmsg_eptdev_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
>
> get_device(dev);
>
> - ept = rpmsg_create_ept(rpdev, rpmsg_ept_cb, eptdev, eptdev->chinfo);
> + /*
> + * If the static_ept is set to true, the rpmsg device default endpoint is used.
> + * Else a new endpoint is created on open that will be destroyed on release.
> + */
> + if (eptdev->static_ept)
> + ept = rpdev->ept;
> + else
> + ept = rpmsg_create_ept(rpdev, rpmsg_ept_cb, eptdev, eptdev->chinfo);
> +
> if (!ept) {
> dev_err(dev, "failed to open %s\n", eptdev->chinfo.name);
> put_device(dev);
> @@ -137,7 +149,8 @@ static int rpmsg_eptdev_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
> /* Close the endpoint, if it's not already destroyed by the parent */
> mutex_lock(&eptdev->ept_lock);
> if (eptdev->ept) {
> - rpmsg_destroy_ept(eptdev->ept);
> + if (!eptdev->static_ept)
> + rpmsg_destroy_ept(eptdev->ept);
> eptdev->ept = NULL;
> }
> mutex_unlock(&eptdev->ept_lock);
> @@ -264,6 +277,10 @@ static long rpmsg_eptdev_ioctl(struct file *fp, unsigned int cmd,
> if (cmd != RPMSG_DESTROY_EPT_IOCTL)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> + /* Don't allow to destroy a default endpoint. */
> + if (!eptdev->rpdev || eptdev->ept == eptdev->rpdev->ept)
Did you find a scenario where eptdev->rpdev would not be valid when this is
called? To me if this code is called __rpmsg_chrdev_eptdev_create() has setup
the rpdev pointer and therefore it will be valid.
If there is a scenario where it is possible that eptdev->rpdev is invalid then
please add a comment with the details. Otherwise simply remove the first part
of the condition.
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
> + return -EPERM;
> +
> return rpmsg_chrdev_eptdev_destroy(&eptdev->dev, NULL);
> }
>
> --
> 2.17.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists