linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ef007d96-4aa6-4e29-bbe6-3d6cb82475ba@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:43:06 -0600
From: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@....com>
To: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>
Cc: mathieu.poirier@...aro.org, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tarak Reddy <tarak.reddy@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] remoteproc: enhance rproc_put() for clusters


On 1/26/24 11:38 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 02:11:25PM -0800, 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>
>
> As described in the first patch, this documents that Tarak first
> certified the origin of this patch, then you certify the origin as you
> handle the patch.
>
> But according to From: you're the author, so how could Tarak have
> certified the origin before you authored the patch?
>
> Either correct the author, or add Co-developed-by, if that's what
> happened.
>
> > ---
> >  drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 6 +++++-
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > index 0b3b34085e2f..f276956f2c5c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > @@ -2554,7 +2554,11 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(rproc_free);
> >   */
> >  void rproc_put(struct rproc *rproc)
> >  {
> > -	module_put(rproc->dev.parent->driver->owner);
> > +	if (rproc->dev.parent->driver)
> > +		module_put(rproc->dev.parent->driver->owner);
> > +	else
> > +		module_put(rproc->dev.parent->parent->driver->owner);
> > +
>
> This does however highlight a bug that was introduced by patch 1, please
> avoid this by squashing the two patches together (and use
> Co-developed-by as needed).

Thanks Bjorn for catching this. This change originally was developed by Tarak, but I sent upstream based on his patch so I missed

to update his name as author. I should update author name.

However, if we are going to squash this in first patch, then I think, first patch's author will stay as it is.

Following Action Item on me for v5:

1) Fix commit text in first patch.

2) Squash second patch in first.

3) Add my s-o-b signature after Mathieu's

4) Add Tarak's s-o-b as well. As he developed second patch.

Hope got it all.


Thanks,

Tanmay

>
> Regards,
> Bjorn
>
> >  	put_device(&rproc->dev);
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(rproc_put);
> > -- 
> > 2.25.1
> >