[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ffdc4c02-724a-2e8a-feff-6dd07b14b0f2@quicinc.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 21:40:53 +0530
From: Vikash Garodia <quic_vgarodia@...cinc.com>
To: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>,
<stanimir.k.varbanov@...il.com>, <agross@...nel.org>,
<andersson@...nel.org>, <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
<mchehab@...nel.org>, <hans.verkuil@...co.com>,
<tfiga@...omium.org>
CC: <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] venus: hfi: add checks to handle capabilities from
firmware
On 8/11/2023 4:09 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 11/08/2023 09:51, Vikash Garodia wrote:
>>
>> On 8/11/2023 2:11 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>> On 11/08/2023 06:54, Vikash Garodia wrote:
>>>> The case is all about rogue firmware. If there is a need to fill the same cap
>>>> again, that itself indicates that the payload from firmware is not correct. In
>>>> such cases, the old as well as new cap data are not reliable. Though the
>>>> authenticity of the data cannot be ensured, the check would avoid any OOB
>>>> during
>>>> such rogue firmware case.
>>>
>>> Then why favour the old cap report over the new ?
>>
>> When the driver hits the case for OOB, thats when it knows that something has
>> gone wrong. Keeping old or new, both are invalid values in such case, nothing to
>> favor any value.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Vikash
>
> Is this hypothetical or a real bug you are actually working to mitigate ?
These are theoretical bugs, not reported during any video usecase so far. At the
same time, these are quite possible when the packets from firmware goes
different than expected.
> ---
> bod
Powered by blists - more mailing lists