linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: core: check state in rproc

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7fdd22ee-e9be-3a68-d6ad-3fae7499ffbe@oss.nxp.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Jul 2022 08:48:54 +0800
From:   Peng Fan <peng.fan@....nxp.com>
To:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
Cc:     mathieu.poirier@...aro.org, linux-imx@....com,
        linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: core: check state in rproc_boot



On 7/17/2022 12:07 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Thu 19 May 01:41 CDT 2022, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> 
>> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
>>
>> If remote processor has already been in RUNNING or ATTACHED
>> state, report it. Not just increment the power counter and return
>> success.
>>
>> Without this patch, if m7 is in RUNNING state, and start it again,
>> nothing output to console.
>> If wanna to stop the m7, we need write twice 'stop'.
>>
>> This patch is to improve that the 2nd start would show some useful
>> info.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
>> ---
>>
>> Not sure to keep power counter or not.
>>
> 
> I did discuss this with Mathieu, whom argued in favor of keeping the
> refcount mechanism.
> 
> I can see that there could be a scenario where multiple user-space
> components keep the remotproc running while they are, and if there is
> any such user this ABI change would be a breakage.
> 
> That said, it's more than once that I accidentally have bumped the
> refcount and then assumed that a single stop would tear down the
> remoteproc...
> 
>>   drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 6 ++++++
>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>> index 02a04ab34a23..f37e0758c096 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>> @@ -2005,6 +2005,12 @@ int rproc_boot(struct rproc *rproc)
>>   		goto unlock_mutex;
>>   	}
>>   
>> +	if (rproc->state == RPROC_RUNNING || rproc->state == RPROC_ATTACHED) {
> 
> If we were to do this would it make sense to boot it out of anything but
> RPROC_OFFLINE?

It is just a bit confused if started twice, need stop twice without any 
notice.Not a critical thing, we could leave it as is.

Thanks,
Peng.

> 
> Regards,
> Bjorn
> 
>> +		ret = -EINVAL;
>> +		dev_err(dev, "%s already booted\n", rproc->name);
>> +		goto unlock_mutex;
>> +	}
>> +
>>   	/* skip the boot or attach process if rproc is already powered up */
>>   	if (atomic_inc_return(&rproc->power) > 1) {
>>   		ret = 0;
>> -- 
>> 2.25.1
>>