linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] remoteproc: enhance 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <830db03c-ec6e-b4aa-834a-e67622e5a41f@amd.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Mar 2023 10:34:57 -0700
From:   Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@....com>
To:     Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
Cc:     andersson@...nel.org, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tarak Reddy <tarak.reddy@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] remoteproc: enhance rproc_put() for clusters


On 3/22/23 9:05 AM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> Hi Tanmay,
>
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 09:09:36PM -0700, Tanmay Shah wrote:
>> This patch enhances rproc_put() to support remoteproc clusters
>> with multiple child nodes as in rproc_get_by_phandle().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tarak Reddy <tarak.reddy@....com>
>> Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@....com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 13 +++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>> index a3e7c8798381..e7e451012615 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>> @@ -2560,6 +2560,19 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(rproc_free);
>>   void rproc_put(struct rproc *rproc)
>>   {
>>   	module_put(rproc->dev.parent->driver->owner);
> There is something wrong here - this should have been removed.


Thanks Mathieu. Sure this needs to be fixed.

This is result of manually picking up patch from my side.

I will try to find better automated way to pick-up patches not available 
on mailing list.


>
>> +	struct platform_device *cluster_pdev;
>> +
>> +	if (rproc->dev.parent) {
> This condition is not needed, please remove.
Ack.
>
>> +		if (rproc->dev.parent->driver) {
>> +			module_put(rproc->dev.parent->driver->owner);
>> +		} else {
>> +			cluster_pdev = of_find_device_by_node(rproc->dev.parent->of_node->parent);
>> +			if (cluster_pdev) {
>> +				module_put(cluster_pdev->dev.driver->owner);
>> +				put_device(&cluster_pdev->dev);

I am not sure if cluster_pdev->dev should be dropped here.

Should we drop it in platform driver after rproc_free() ?

>> +			}
>> +		}
>> +	}
> Some in-lined documentation, the way I did in patch 1/2 would be appreciated.
> Otherwize I think the above enhancement make sense.
Ack I will document in next revision.
>
> Thanks,
> Mathieu
>
>>   	put_device(&rproc->dev);


Also, if we decide to drop cluster->dev here  then,

should we drop reference of rproc->dev before cluster->dev ?


>>   }
>>   EXPORT_SYMBOL(rproc_put);
>> -- 
>> 2.25.1
>>