linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/22] firmware: arm_scmi: Add SCMIv3.1 extended names protocols support

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: <YqoI5hYa97nZwUjl@e120937-lin>
Date:   Wed, 15 Jun 2022 17:29:41 +0100
From:   Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        sudeep.holla@....com, james.quinlan@...adcom.com,
        Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com, etienne.carriere@...aro.org,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, souvik.chakravarty@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/22] firmware: arm_scmi: Add SCMIv3.1 extended names
 protocols support

On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 09:10:03AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 6/15/22 02:40, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 09:18:03AM +0100, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 05:45:11AM +0200, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 3/30/2022 5:05 PM, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> > > > > Using the common protocol helper implementation add support for all new
> > > > > SCMIv3.1 extended names commands related to all protocols with the
> > > > > exception of SENSOR_AXIS_GET_NAME.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>
> > > > 
> > > > This causes the following splat on a platform where regulators fail to
> > > > initialize:
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi Florian,
> > > 
> > > thanks for the report.
> > > 
> > > It seems a memory error while allocating so it was not meant to be
> > > solved by the fixes, anyway, I've never seen this splat in my testing
> > > and at first sight I cannot see anything wrong in the devm_k* calls
> > > inside scmi_voltage_protocol_init...is there any particular config in
> > > your setup ?
> > > 
> > > Moreover, the WARNING line 5402 seems to match v5.19-rc1 and it has
> > > slightly changed with -rc-1, so I'll try rebasing on that at first and
> > > see if I can reproduce the issue locally.
> > > 
> > 
> > I just re-tested the series rebased on v519-rc1 plus fixes and I cannot
> > reproduce in my setup with a few (~9) good and bad voltage domains.
> > 
> > How many voltage domains are advertised by the platform in your setup ?
> 
> There are 11 voltage regulators on this platform, and of course, now that I
> am trying to reproduce the splat I reported I just cannot anymore... I will
> let you know if there is anything that needs to be done. Thanks for being
> responsive as usual!

... you're welcome...

I'm trying to figure out where an abnormal mem request could happen...

can you try adding this (for brutal debugging) when you try ?
(...just to rule out funny fw replies.... :D)

Thanks,
Cristian

--->8----

diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/voltage.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/voltage.c
index 895741b66f5a..fd841292df5c 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/voltage.c
+++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/voltage.c
@@ -108,6 +108,9 @@ static int scmi_init_voltage_levels(struct device *dev,
                return -EINVAL;
        }
 
+       dev_info(dev, "num_returned:%d  num_remaining:%d\n",
+                num_returned, num_remaining);
+
        v->levels_uv = devm_kcalloc(dev, num_levels, sizeof(u32), GFP_KERNEL);
        if (!v->levels_uv)
                return -ENOMEM;


> -- 
> Florian