linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] remoteproc: k3-r5: Do not allow core1 to power up before core0 via sysfs

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]

Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 09:14:36 -0600
From: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
To: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
Cc: Beleswar Padhi <b-padhi@...com>, andersson@...nel.org, s-anna@...com, 
	linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	u-kumar1@...com, nm@...com, devarsht@...com, hnagalla@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] remoteproc: k3-r5: Do not allow core1 to power up
 before core0 via sysfs

On Sat, 18 May 2024 at 04:44, Christophe JAILLET
<christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr> wrote:
>
> Le 30/04/2024 à 12:53, Beleswar Padhi a écrit :
> > PSC controller has a limitation that it can only power-up the second
> > core when the first core is in ON state. Power-state for core0 should be
> > equal to or higher than core1.
> >
> > Therefore, prevent core1 from powering up before core0 during the start
> > process from sysfs. Similarly, prevent core0 from shutting down before
> > core1 has been shut down from sysfs.
> >
> > Fixes: 6dedbd1d5443 ("remoteproc: k3-r5: Add a remoteproc driver for R5F subsystem")
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Beleswar Padhi <b-padhi@...com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
> >   1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
> > index 6d6afd6beb3a..1799b4f6d11e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
> > @@ -548,7 +548,7 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc)
> >       struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc = rproc->priv;
> >       struct k3_r5_cluster *cluster = kproc->cluster;
> >       struct device *dev = kproc->dev;
> > -     struct k3_r5_core *core;
> > +     struct k3_r5_core *core0, *core;
> >       u32 boot_addr;
> >       int ret;
> >
> > @@ -574,6 +574,15 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc)
> >                               goto unroll_core_run;
> >               }
> >       } else {
> > +             /* do not allow core 1 to start before core 0 */
> > +             core0 = list_first_entry(&cluster->cores, struct k3_r5_core,
> > +                                      elem);
> > +             if (core != core0 && core0->rproc->state == RPROC_OFFLINE) {
> > +                     dev_err(dev, "%s: can not start core 1 before core 0\n",
> > +                             __func__);
> > +                     return -EPERM;
> > +             }
> > +
> >               ret = k3_r5_core_run(core);
> >               if (ret)
> >                       goto put_mbox;
> > @@ -619,7 +628,8 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
> >   {
> >       struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc = rproc->priv;
> >       struct k3_r5_cluster *cluster = kproc->cluster;
> > -     struct k3_r5_core *core = kproc->core;
> > +     struct device *dev = kproc->dev;
> > +     struct k3_r5_core *core1, *core = kproc->core;
> >       int ret;
> >
> >       /* halt all applicable cores */
> > @@ -632,6 +642,15 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
> >                       }
> >               }
> >       } else {
> > +             /* do not allow core 0 to stop before core 1 */
> > +             core1 = list_last_entry(&cluster->cores, struct k3_r5_core,
> > +                                     elem);
> > +             if (core != core1 && core1->rproc->state != RPROC_OFFLINE) {
> > +                     dev_err(dev, "%s: can not stop core 0 before core 1\n",
> > +                             __func__);
> > +                     return -EPERM;
>
> Hi,
>
> this patch has already reached -next, but should this "return -EPERM;" be :
>         ret = -EPERM;
>         goto put_mbox;
>
> instead?
>

This has already been addressed:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/remoteproc/linux.git/commit/?h=rproc-next&id=1dc7242f6ee0c99852cb90676d7fe201cf5de422

> CJ
>
> > +             }
> > +
> >               ret = k3_r5_core_halt(core);
> >               if (ret)
> >                       goto out;
>