linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V7 1/3] rpmsg: core: Add signal API support

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:   Thu, 15 Jun 2023 10:47:29 +0200
From:   Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@...s.st.com>
To:     Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>
CC:     Sarannya S <quic_sarannya@...cinc.com>,
        <quic_bjorande@...cinc.com>, <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        <quic_clew@...cinc.com>, <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Deepak Kumar Singh <quic_deesin@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 1/3] rpmsg: core: Add signal API support

Hi,

On 6/14/23 17:24, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 02:49:29PM +0200, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 4/22/23 12:42, Sarannya S wrote:
>>> From: Deepak Kumar Singh <quic_deesin@...cinc.com>
>>>
>>> Some transports like Glink support the state notifications between
>>> clients using flow control signals similar to serial protocol signals.
>>> Local glink client drivers can send and receive flow control status
>>> to glink clients running on remote processors.
>>>
>>> Add APIs to support sending and receiving of flow control status by
>>> rpmsg clients.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Deepak Kumar Singh <quic_deesin@...cinc.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sarannya S <quic_sarannya@...cinc.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_core.c     | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_internal.h |  2 ++
>>>  include/linux/rpmsg.h          | 15 +++++++++++++++
>>>  3 files changed, 38 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_core.c b/drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_core.c
>>> index a2207c0..e8bbe05 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_core.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_core.c
>>> @@ -331,6 +331,25 @@ int rpmsg_trysend_offchannel(struct rpmsg_endpoint *ept, u32 src, u32 dst,
>>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(rpmsg_trysend_offchannel);
>>>  
>>>  /**
>>> + * rpmsg_set_flow_control() - sets/clears serial flow control signals
>>> + * @ept:	the rpmsg endpoint
>>> + * @enable:	pause/resume incoming data flow	
>>> + * @dst:	destination address of the endpoint
>>> + *
>>> + * Return: 0 on success and an appropriate error value on failure.
>>> + */
>>> +int rpmsg_set_flow_control(struct rpmsg_endpoint *ept, bool enable, u32 dst)
>>> +{
>>> +	if (WARN_ON(!ept))
>>> +		return -EINVAL;
>>> +	if (!ept->ops->set_flow_control)
>>> +		return -ENXIO;
>>
>> Here we return an error if the backend does not implement the ops.
>> But the set_flow_control ops is optional.
>> Should we return 0 instead with a debug message?
>>
> 
> It seems reasonable to allow the software to react to the absence of
> flow control support, so a debug message wouldn't help.
> 
> But advertising that more explicitly by returning something like
> EOPNOTSUPP seems better.

Right, this seems more reliable.

Thanks,
Arnaud

> 
> Regards,
> Bjorn