| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <DU0PR04MB94170220090D96A5D961F9B4880A9@DU0PR04MB9417.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 22:05:01 +0000
From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
To: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
"Peng Fan (OSS)" <peng.fan@....nxp.com>
CC: "bjorn.andersson@...aro.org" <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
"arnaud.pouliquen@...s.st.com" <arnaud.pouliquen@...s.st.com>,
"linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 2/2] remoteproc: support attach recovery after rproc
crash
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] remoteproc: support attach recovery after rproc
> crash
>
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 at 23:08, Peng Fan (OSS) <peng.fan@....nxp.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
> >
> > Current logic only support main processor to stop/start the remote
> > processor after rproc crash. However to SoC, such as i.MX8QM/QXP, the
> > remote processor could do attach recovery after crash and trigger
> > watchdog reboot. It does not need main processor to load image, or
> > stop/start M4 core.
> >
> > Introduce two functions: rproc_attach_recovery,
> > rproc_firmware_recovery for the two cases. Firmware recovery is as
> > before, let main processor to help recovery, while attach recovery is recover
> itself withou help.
> > To attach recovery, we only do detach and attach.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
> > ---
> >
> > V2:
> > use rproc_has_feature in patch 1/2
> >
> > drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 67
> > ++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > index 69f51acf235e..366fad475898 100644
> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > @@ -1887,6 +1887,50 @@ static int __rproc_detach(struct rproc *rproc)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +static int rproc_attach_recovery(struct rproc *rproc) {
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
> > + ret = rproc_detach(rproc);
> > + mutex_lock(&rproc->lock);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + if (atomic_inc_return(&rproc->power) > 1)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + return rproc_attach(rproc);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int rproc_firmware_recovery(struct rproc *rproc) {
> > + const struct firmware *firmware_p;
> > + struct device *dev = &rproc->dev;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = rproc_stop(rproc, true);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + /* generate coredump */
> > + rproc->ops->coredump(rproc);
> > +
> > + /* load firmware */
> > + ret = request_firmware(&firmware_p, rproc->firmware, dev);
> > + if (ret < 0) {
> > + dev_err(dev, "request_firmware failed: %d\n", ret);
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* boot the remote processor up again */
> > + ret = rproc_start(rproc, firmware_p);
> > +
> > + release_firmware(firmware_p);
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > /**
> > * rproc_trigger_recovery() - recover a remoteproc
> > * @rproc: the remote processor
> > @@ -1901,7 +1945,6 @@ static int __rproc_detach(struct rproc *rproc)
> > */
> > int rproc_trigger_recovery(struct rproc *rproc) {
> > - const struct firmware *firmware_p;
> > struct device *dev = &rproc->dev;
> > int ret;
> >
> > @@ -1915,24 +1958,10 @@ int rproc_trigger_recovery(struct rproc
> > *rproc)
> >
> > dev_err(dev, "recovering %s\n", rproc->name);
> >
> > - ret = rproc_stop(rproc, true);
> > - if (ret)
> > - goto unlock_mutex;
> > -
> > - /* generate coredump */
> > - rproc->ops->coredump(rproc);
> > -
> > - /* load firmware */
> > - ret = request_firmware(&firmware_p, rproc->firmware, dev);
> > - if (ret < 0) {
> > - dev_err(dev, "request_firmware failed: %d\n", ret);
> > - goto unlock_mutex;
> > - }
> > -
> > - /* boot the remote processor up again */
> > - ret = rproc_start(rproc, firmware_p);
> > -
> > - release_firmware(firmware_p);
> > + if (rproc_has_feature(rproc, RPROC_FEAT_ATTACH_RECOVERY))
> > + ret = rproc_attach_recovery(rproc);
> > + else
> > + ret = rproc_firmware_recovery(rproc);
>
> Should I assume this set, which is labeled V2, replaces this other patch [1]
> that is also labeled V2, sent out on January 26th? If so, why are they both
> labeled with the same tag and why isn't there a cover letter to clearly state
> your intent? More importantly, why am I having this conversation with an
> experienced kernel developer that should know better?
>
> Any reason I should not move this work to the very bottom of my patch queue
> or better yet, simply drop it?
My bad. This patchset should labeled V3. I'll resend the patchset with a cover-letter
and label V3. Thanks for your patience.
Thanks,
Peng.
>
> [1].
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore.ke
> rnel.org%2Flkml%2F20220207173456.GA3355405%40p14s%2Ft%2F&da
> ta=04%7C01%7Cpeng.fan%40nxp.com%7Ccb80ecb9fb3348d1222a08da01fc2
> 6cf%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C637824479736
> 071420%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2
> luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=FIdhBvAUP
> NZDPxzEW6wW%2B0GPzoQ7MUm8IbXc7yq%2BP6w%3D&reserved=0
>
> >
> > unlock_mutex:
> > mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
> > --
> > 2.30.0
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists