| 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: <c61c5eae-105b-2a79-c1c0-57cd5bfea4f9@oss.nxp.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2022 14:49:38 +0800
From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....nxp.com>
To: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@...s.st.com>
Cc: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
"bjorn.andersson@...aro.org" <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
"linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 2/2] remoteproc: support attach recovery after rproc
crash
On 9/28/2022 1:44 AM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 10:10:31AM +0200, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 9/27/22 05:03, Peng Fan wrote:
>>> Hi Mathieu,
>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 2/2] remoteproc: support attach recovery after rproc
>>>> crash
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 09:15:27AM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
>>>>> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Current logic only support main processor to stop/start the remote
>>>>> processor after crash. However to SoC, such as i.MX8QM/QXP, the remote
>>>>> processor could do attach recovery after crash and trigger watchdog to
>>>>> reboot itself. It does not need main processor to load image, or
>>>>> stop/start remote processor.
>>>>>
>>>>> Introduce two functions: rproc_attach_recovery, rproc_boot_recovery
>>>>> for the two cases. Boot recovery is as before, let main processor to
>>>>> help recovery, while attach recovery is to recover itself without help.
>>>>> To attach recovery, we only do detach and attach.
>>>>>
>>>>> Acked-by: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@...s.st.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 62
>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++---------
>>>>> 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>>>>> b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>>>>> index ed374c8bf14a..ef5b9310bc83 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>>>>> @@ -1884,6 +1884,45 @@ static int __rproc_detach(struct rproc *rproc)
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> +static int rproc_attach_recovery(struct rproc *rproc) {
>>>>> + int ret;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + ret = __rproc_detach(rproc);
>>>>> + if (ret)
>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>
>>>> I thought there was a specific reason to _not_ call rproc->ops->coredump()
>>>> for processors that have been attached to but looking at the STM32 and
>>>> IMX_DSP now, it would seem logical to do so. Am I missing something?
>>>
>>> ATTACH RECOVERY is to support recovery without help from Linux,
>>>
>>> STM32 and IMX_DSP, both require linux to load image and start remote
>>> core. So the two cases should not enable feature:
>>> RPROC_FEAT_ATTACH_ON_RECOVERY
>>>
>>> Also considering the recovery is out of linux control, actually when linux
>>> start dump, remote core may already recovered.
>>
>> I asked myself the same question. Indeed how to manage a core dump if the
>> remote processor restarts autonomously.
>> The answer doesn't seem obvious because it seems to be platform specific.
>>
>> For time being on STM32 we consider that the remoteproc memory can be corrupted
>> so we don't plan to enable the feature by default even if the hardware allows it.
>>
>> If we implement it, I would see 2 use cases:
>> - no core dump, the remote processor restart autonomously (need to manage the
>> VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_NEEDS_RESET in resource table vdev for resynchronization)
>> - core dump and the Linux stm32 driver handle the reset of the remote
>> processor core to be able to perform the core dump (no firmware loading)
>>
>> What about dealing with the coredump in a separate thread, based on a concrete
>> use case/need?
>
> Definitely, we can deal with that later.
>
> Peng - please send me a rebase as quickly as possible.
Mathieu,
Just send out V8 rebased on linux-next/master tag: next-20220927
Thanks,
Peng.
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Arnaud
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And this set will need a rebase.
>>>
>>> I'll do the rebase and send V8 if the upper explanation could eliminate
>>> your concern.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Peng.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Mathieu
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return __rproc_attach(rproc);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static int rproc_boot_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
>>>>> @@ -1898,7 +1937,6 @@ 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;
>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -1912,24 +1950,10 @@ 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_ON_RECOVERY))
>>>>> + ret = rproc_attach_recovery(rproc);
>>>>> + else
>>>>> + ret = rproc_boot_recovery(rproc);
>>>>>
>>>>> unlock_mutex:
>>>>> mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
>>>>> --
>>>>> 2.25.1
>>>>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists