| 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: <d48462f6-de4c-2816-0a7a-b3b13993604c@ideasonboard.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:59:28 +0530
From: Umang Jain <umang.jain@...asonboard.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc: linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Adrien Thierry <athierry@...hat.com>,
Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>,
Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenz@...nel.org>,
Phil Elwell <phil@...pberrypi.com>,
Dave Stevenson <dave.stevenson@...pberrypi.com>,
Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: vc04_services: vchiq_arm: Create platform_device
per device
Hi Greg, Laurent
thank you for the feedback
On 12/21/22 6:40 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 01:14:59PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> Hi Umang,
>>
>> Thank you for the patch.
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 02:14:04PM +0530, Umang Jain wrote:
>>> Create a proper per device platorm_device structure for all the child
>>> devices that needs to be registered by vchiq platform driver. Replace
>>> the vchiq_register_child() with platform_add_devices() to register the
>>> child devices.
>> This explains what the patch does, but not why.
>>
>>> This is part of an effort to address TODO item "Get rid of all non
>>> essential global structures and create a proper per device structure"
>> And this explains part of the reason only. Could you please expand the
>> commit message with the reasoning behind this change ? It's not clear
>> from the change below why this is needed and good.
Ok, I thought the TODO reference was sufficient but I'll expand on it.
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Umang Jain <umang.jain@...asonboard.com>
>>> ---
>>> .../interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c | 59 ++++++++++---------
>>> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
>>> index 22de23f3af02..fa42ea3791a7 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
>>> @@ -65,8 +65,29 @@ int vchiq_susp_log_level = VCHIQ_LOG_ERROR;
>>> DEFINE_SPINLOCK(msg_queue_spinlock);
>>> struct vchiq_state g_state;
>>>
>>> -static struct platform_device *bcm2835_camera;
>>> -static struct platform_device *bcm2835_audio;
>>> +static u64 vchiq_device_dmamask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32);
>> The fact that this isn't const and is used by two different
>> platform_device instances is worrying. Either it can be made const, or
>> it's wrong.
ack.
>>
>>> +
>>> +static struct platform_device bcm2835_camera = {
>>> + .name = "bcm2835-camera",
>>> + .id = PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE,
>>> + .dev = {
>>> + .dma_mask = &vchiq_device_dmamask,
>>> + }
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +static struct platform_device bcm2835_audio = {
>>> + .name = "bcm2835_audio",
>>> + .id = PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE,
>>> + .dev = {
>>> + .dma_mask = &vchiq_device_dmamask,
>>> + }
>>> +
>> Extra blank line.
oops, checkpatch.pl didn't catch this :-/
>>
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +static struct platform_device *vchiq_devices[] __initdata = {
>> Make it const.
>>
>>> + &bcm2835_camera,
>>> + &bcm2835_audio,
>>> +};
>>>
>>> struct vchiq_drvdata {
>>> const unsigned int cache_line_size;
>>> @@ -1763,28 +1784,6 @@ static const struct of_device_id vchiq_of_match[] = {
>>> };
>>> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, vchiq_of_match);
>>>
>>> -static struct platform_device *
>>> -vchiq_register_child(struct platform_device *pdev, const char *name)
>>> -{
>>> - struct platform_device_info pdevinfo;
>>> - struct platform_device *child;
>>> -
>>> - memset(&pdevinfo, 0, sizeof(pdevinfo));
>>> -
>>> - pdevinfo.parent = &pdev->dev;
>>> - pdevinfo.name = name;
>>> - pdevinfo.id = PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE;
>>> - pdevinfo.dma_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32);
>>> -
>>> - child = platform_device_register_full(&pdevinfo);
>>> - if (IS_ERR(child)) {
>>> - dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "%s not registered\n", name);
>>> - child = NULL;
>>> - }
>>> -
>>> - return child;
>>> -}
>>> -
>>> static int vchiq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> {
>>> struct device_node *fw_node;
>>> @@ -1832,8 +1831,11 @@ static int vchiq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> goto error_exit;
>>> }
>>>
>>> - bcm2835_camera = vchiq_register_child(pdev, "bcm2835-camera");
>>> - bcm2835_audio = vchiq_register_child(pdev, "bcm2835_audio");
>>> + err = platform_add_devices(vchiq_devices, ARRAY_SIZE(vchiq_devices));
>>> + if (err) {
>>> + dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "Failed to add vchiq child devices");
>>> + goto error_exit;
>>> + }
>> If you unbind and rebind this driver, the platform_device instances
>> defined as global variables will be reused, and I'm pretty sure that
>> will cause issues, for instance with the kobj->state_initialized check
>> in kobject_init() (called from device_initialize(), itself called from
>> platform_device_register(), from platform_add_devices()). I'm not sure
>> static instances of platform_device are a very good idea in general.
> static instances of any device are a horrible idea, but it seems that
> many drivers do this and abuse platform devices this way :(
It seems I have been a victim of the abuse usage while looking for
platform_device references in the codebase. I'm working on a new
approach for this.
Currently (as per the linux-next branch), the vchiq driver will happily
carry on if any of the child platform device registration fails. That
means if bcm2835-audio fails to register, bcm2835-camera will still
kept registered I suppose.
However with usage of platform_add_devices() in this patch, I introduced
a functionality change (I'm realizing this now) - any failure of child
platform device registeration will -unregister- all the other platform
devices i.e. if bcm2835-audio fails, bcm2835-camera will also get
unregistered.
Should I be working towards the status-quo behavior ? Or it's sane to
unregistered other platform devices if one of the fails like
platform_add_devices() does ? (This affects my new approach as well,
hence the question)
>
> Ideally this should be done properly, with the correct devices created
> automatically based on the device tree structure, NOT hard-coded into a
> .c file like this.
>
> So I too really do not like this change, why are these not being created
> by the firware layer automatically?
Not sure if this is a helpful comment, but as far I know, there can be
vchiq child platform devices which probably don't have a Device tree
entry. like the bcm2835-isp [1] I posted earlier.
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221121214722.22563-1-umang.jain@ideasonboard.com/
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists