| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <e44c3c5c-47a3-43c4-aa85-ccc5bc81245e@ti.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 16:28:02 +0530
From: Beleswar Prasad Padhi <b-padhi@...com>
To: Andrew Davis <afd@...com>, <andersson@...nel.org>,
<mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
CC: <hnagalla@...com>, <u-kumar1@...com>, <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] remoteproc: k3-r5: Acquire mailbox handle during
probe
Hi Andrew,
On 04/06/24 22:40, Andrew Davis wrote:
> On 6/4/24 12:17 AM, Beleswar Padhi wrote:
>> Acquire the mailbox handle during device probe and do not release handle
>> in stop/detach routine or error paths. This removes the redundant
>> requests for mbox handle later during rproc start/attach. This also
>> allows to defer remoteproc driver's probe if mailbox is not probed yet.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Beleswar Padhi <b-padhi@...com>
>> ---
>> drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 74 +++++++++---------------
>> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
>> b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
>> index 26362a509ae3c..7e02e3472ce25 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
>> @@ -194,6 +194,10 @@ static void k3_r5_rproc_mbox_callback(struct
>> mbox_client *client, void *data)
>> const char *name = kproc->rproc->name;
>> u32 msg = omap_mbox_message(data);
>> + /* Do not forward message to a detached core */
>
> s/to/from
>
> This is the receive side from the core.
>
>> + if (kproc->rproc->state == RPROC_DETACHED)
>> + return;
>> +
>
> Do we need a similar check when sending messages to the core in
> k3_r5_rproc_kick()? No one should be sending anything as they
> all should have detached at this point, but something to double
> check on.
>
>> dev_dbg(dev, "mbox msg: 0x%x\n", msg);
>> switch (msg) {
>> @@ -399,12 +403,9 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_request_mbox(struct rproc
>> *rproc)
>> client->knows_txdone = false;
>> kproc->mbox = mbox_request_channel(client, 0);
>> - if (IS_ERR(kproc->mbox)) {
>> - ret = -EBUSY;
>> - dev_err(dev, "mbox_request_channel failed: %ld\n",
>> - PTR_ERR(kproc->mbox));
>> - return ret;
>> - }
>> + if (IS_ERR(kproc->mbox))
>> + return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(kproc->mbox),
>> + "mbox_request_channel failed\n");
>
> This is good cleanup, but maybe something for its own patch.
>
>> /*
>> * Ping the remote processor, this is only for sanity-sake for
>> now;
>> @@ -552,10 +553,6 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc)
>> u32 boot_addr;
>> int ret;
>> - ret = k3_r5_rproc_request_mbox(rproc);
>> - if (ret)
>> - return ret;
>> -
>> boot_addr = rproc->bootaddr;
>> /* TODO: add boot_addr sanity checking */
>> dev_dbg(dev, "booting R5F core using boot addr = 0x%x\n",
>> boot_addr);
>> @@ -564,7 +561,7 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc)
>> core = kproc->core;
>> ret = ti_sci_proc_set_config(core->tsp, boot_addr, 0, 0);
>> if (ret)
>> - goto put_mbox;
>> + return ret;
>> /* unhalt/run all applicable cores */
>> if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP) {
>> @@ -580,13 +577,12 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc)
>> if (core != core0 && core0->rproc->state == RPROC_OFFLINE) {
>> dev_err(dev, "%s: can not start core 1 before core 0\n",
>> __func__);
>> - ret = -EPERM;
>> - goto put_mbox;
>> + return -EPERM;
>> }
>> ret = k3_r5_core_run(core);
>> if (ret)
>> - goto put_mbox;
>> + return ret;
>> }
>> return 0;
>> @@ -596,8 +592,6 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc)
>> if (k3_r5_core_halt(core))
>> dev_warn(core->dev, "core halt back failed\n");
>> }
>> -put_mbox:
>> - mbox_free_channel(kproc->mbox);
>> return ret;
>> }
>> @@ -658,8 +652,6 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
>> goto out;
>> }
>> - mbox_free_channel(kproc->mbox);
>> -
>> return 0;
>> unroll_core_halt:
>> @@ -674,42 +666,22 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
>> /*
>> * Attach to a running R5F remote processor (IPC-only mode)
>> *
>> - * The R5F attach callback only needs to request the mailbox, the
>> remote
>> - * processor is already booted, so there is no need to issue any TI-SCI
>> - * commands to boot the R5F cores in IPC-only mode. This callback is
>> invoked
>> - * only in IPC-only mode.
>> + * The R5F attach callback is a NOP. The remote processor is already
>> booted, and
>> + * all required resources have been acquired during probe routine,
>> so there is
>> + * no need to issue any TI-SCI commands to boot the R5F cores in
>> IPC-only mode.
>> + * This callback is invoked only in IPC-only mode and exists because
>> + * rproc_validate() checks for its existence.
>> */
>> -static int k3_r5_rproc_attach(struct rproc *rproc)
>> -{
>> - struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc = rproc->priv;
>> - struct device *dev = kproc->dev;
>> - int ret;
>> -
>> - ret = k3_r5_rproc_request_mbox(rproc);
>> - if (ret)
>> - return ret;
>> -
>> - dev_info(dev, "R5F core initialized in IPC-only mode\n");
>> - return 0;
>> -}
>> +static int k3_r5_rproc_attach(struct rproc *rproc) { return 0; }
>
> I wonder if rproc_validate() should be updated to allow not
> having an attach/detach for cases like this. Then we could drop
> this function completely.
Not sure if we can update rproc_validate() for this usecase. Ideally, it
checks for an attach function if the core is detached, which should be
correct, right?
Will address all other comments in the next revision!
>
> Andrew
>
>> /*
>> * Detach from a running R5F remote processor (IPC-only mode)
>> *
>> - * The R5F detach callback performs the opposite operation to attach
>> callback
>> - * and only needs to release the mailbox, the R5F cores are not
>> stopped and
>> - * will be left in booted state in IPC-only mode. This callback is
>> invoked
>> - * only in IPC-only mode.
>> + * The R5F detach callback is a NOP. The R5F cores are not stopped
>> and will be
>> + * left in booted state in IPC-only mode. This callback is invoked
>> only in
>> + * IPC-only mode and exists for sanity sake.
>> */
>> -static int k3_r5_rproc_detach(struct rproc *rproc)
>> -{
>> - struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc = rproc->priv;
>> - struct device *dev = kproc->dev;
>> -
>> - mbox_free_channel(kproc->mbox);
>> - dev_info(dev, "R5F core deinitialized in IPC-only mode\n");
>> - return 0;
>> -}
>> +static int k3_r5_rproc_detach(struct rproc *rproc) { return 0; }
>> /*
>> * This function implements the .get_loaded_rsc_table() callback
>> and is used
>> @@ -1277,6 +1249,10 @@ static int k3_r5_cluster_rproc_init(struct
>> platform_device *pdev)
>> kproc->rproc = rproc;
>> core->rproc = rproc;
>> + ret = k3_r5_rproc_request_mbox(rproc);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> ret = k3_r5_rproc_configure_mode(kproc);
>> if (ret < 0)
>> goto err_config;
>> @@ -1393,6 +1369,8 @@ static void k3_r5_cluster_rproc_exit(void *data)
>> }
>> }
>> + mbox_free_channel(kproc->mbox);
>> +
>> rproc_del(rproc);
>> k3_r5_reserved_mem_exit(kproc);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists