linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] dt-bindings: mailbox: add google,gs101-mbox

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: <CABb+yY0JMZfwR9xQ8s80Kmg0gE1DRDJ9bHB=eMnw70uw5nBshw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2025 10:59:32 -0600
From: Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>
To: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, 
	Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, andre.draszik@...aro.org, 
	peter.griffin@...aro.org, kernel-team@...roid.com, willmcvicker@...gle.com, 
	daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org, ulf.hansson@...aro.org, 
	arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] dt-bindings: mailbox: add google,gs101-mbox

On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 3:38 AM Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> Hi, Jassi,
>
> On 1/3/25 9:57 AM, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
> >>> Then I updated the mailbox core to allow clients to request channels by
> >>> passing some args containing channel identifiers to the controllers,
> >>> that the controllers xlate() using their own method.
> >>>
> >> This is unnecessary.
> >> If you don't pass the doorbell number from DT, each channel populated
> >> by the driver is just a s/w construct or a 'virtual' channel. Make use
> >> of 'void *data'  in send_data() to specify the doorbell.
> >>
> > I think this introduces concurrency problems if the channel identifiers
> > passed by 'void *data' don't match the virtual channel used for sending
> > the messages. Do we want to allow this?
> >
> > Also, if we use 'void *data' to pass channel identifiers, the channel
> > checks will have to be made at send_data() time. Thus if passing wrong
> > channel type for example, the mailbox client will eventually get a
> > -ENOBUFS and a "Try increasing MBOX_TX_QUEUE_LEN" message, which I find
> > misleading.
>
> Shall I still use 'void *data' to pass channel identifiers through
> send_data()? I'd like to respin everything.
>
Yes, please do.

thanks