linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] remoteproc: Add device awake calls in rproc boot and shutdown path

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: <6lyuwfypd5sq5fqu2ibgpxiulvq3txe6igxhrpqd4443z4zex4@5bvlrpohwg5c>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 17:21:33 -0500
From: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>
To: Souradeep Chowdhury <quic_schowdhu@...cinc.com>
Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>, 
	linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] remoteproc: Add device awake calls in rproc boot and
 shutdown path

On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 05:10:57PM +0530, Souradeep Chowdhury wrote:
> Add device awake calls in case of rproc boot and rproc shutdown path.
> Currently, device awake call is only present in the recovery path
> of remoteproc. If a user stops and starts rproc by using the sysfs
> interface, then on pm suspension the firmware loading fails. Keep the
> device awake in such a case just like it is done for the recovery path.
> 

Please rewrite this in the form expressed in
https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html#describe-your-changes

Clearly describe the problem you're solving - not just the change in
behavior.

What do you mean that "firmware loading fails" if we hit a suspend
during stop and start through sysfs? At what point does it fail?

> Fixes: a781e5aa59110 ("remoteproc: core: Prevent system suspend during remoteproc recovery")

That patch clearly states that it intends to keep the system from
suspending during recovery. As far as I can tell you're changing the
start and stop sequences.

As such, I don't think the referred to patch was broken and you're not
fixing it.

> Signed-off-by: Souradeep Chowdhury <quic_schowdhu@...cinc.com>
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org

It's not clear to me from the commit message why this should be
backported to stable kernel.

> ---
> Changes in v3
> 
> *Add the stability mailing list in commit message
>  
>  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 c2cf0d277729..908a7b8f6c7e 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> @@ -1916,7 +1916,8 @@ int rproc_boot(struct rproc *rproc)
>  		pr_err("invalid rproc handle\n");
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	}
> -
> +	

You're replacing an empty line with a tab...


Other than that, the change looks sensible.

Regards,
Bjorn

> +	pm_stay_awake(rproc->dev.parent);
>  	dev = &rproc->dev;
>  
>  	ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&rproc->lock);
> @@ -1961,6 +1962,7 @@ int rproc_boot(struct rproc *rproc)
>  		atomic_dec(&rproc->power);
>  unlock_mutex:
>  	mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
> +	pm_relax(rproc->dev.parent);
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(rproc_boot);
> @@ -1991,6 +1993,7 @@ int rproc_shutdown(struct rproc *rproc)
>  	struct device *dev = &rproc->dev;
>  	int ret = 0;
>  
> +	pm_stay_awake(rproc->dev.parent);
>  	ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&rproc->lock);
>  	if (ret) {
>  		dev_err(dev, "can't lock rproc %s: %d\n", rproc->name, ret);
> @@ -2027,6 +2030,7 @@ int rproc_shutdown(struct rproc *rproc)
>  	rproc->table_ptr = NULL;
>  out:
>  	mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
> +	pm_relax(rproc->dev.parent);
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(rproc_shutdown);
> -- 
> 2.34.1
>