linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/8] remoteproc: qcom: Add support for memory sandbox

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]

Date:   Sat, 6 Aug 2022 22:39:08 +0200
From:   Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To:     Srinivasa Rao Mandadapu <quic_srivasam@...cinc.com>
Cc:     agross@...nel.org, bgoswami@...cinc.com,
        bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, broonie@...nel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, judyhsiao@...omium.org,
        lgirdwood@...il.com, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
        perex@...ex.cz, quic_plai@...cinc.com, quic_rohkumar@...cinc.com,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org,
        swboyd@...omium.org, tiwai@...e.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] remoteproc: qcom: Add support for memory sandbox

Hi,

the error handling below looks odd.

Le 03/08/2022 à 16:21, Srinivasa Rao Mandadapu a écrit :
> Add memory sandbox support for ADSP based platforms secure booting.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Srinivasa Rao Mandadapu <quic_srivasam-jfJNa2p1gH1BDgjK7y7TUQ@...lic.gmane.org>
> ---
>   drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_adsp.c | 101 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>   1 file changed, 99 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_adsp.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_adsp.c
> index 3dbd035..f81da47 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_adsp.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_adsp.c

>   static int adsp_start(struct rproc *rproc)
>   {
>   	struct qcom_adsp *adsp = (struct qcom_adsp *)rproc->priv;
> @@ -341,7 +429,13 @@ static int adsp_start(struct rproc *rproc)
>   	ret = qcom_q6v5_prepare(&adsp->q6v5);
>   	if (ret)
>   		return ret;
> -
> +	if (!adsp->is_wpss) {
> +		ret = adsp_map_smmu(adsp, rproc);
> +		if (ret) {
> +			dev_err(adsp->dev, "ADSP smmu mapping failed\n");
> +			goto adsp_smmu_unmap;
goto disable_irqs;?

> +		}
> +	}
>   	ret = clk_prepare_enable(adsp->xo);
>   	if (ret)
>   		goto disable_irqs;

goto adsp_smmu_unmap;?

> @@ -402,6 +496,9 @@ static int adsp_start(struct rproc *rproc)
>   	clk_disable_unprepare(adsp->xo);
>   disable_irqs:
>   	qcom_q6v5_unprepare(&adsp->q6v5);
> +adsp_smmu_unmap:
> +	iommu_unmap(adsp->iommu_dom, adsp->mem_phys, adsp->mem_size);
> +	iommu_domain_free(adsp->iommu_dom);

Should this new hunk be above disable_irqs?
And I think that it should be guardd with a "if (!adsp->is_wpss)".

CJ

>   
>   	return ret;
>   }