linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] accel/ivpu: Add handling of VPU_JSM_STATUS_MVNCI_CONTEXT_VIOLATION

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: <08f09dbb-5507-4f38-acea-d76c2c7a1764@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2025 14:50:10 +0200
From: Jacek Lawrynowicz <jacek.lawrynowicz@...ux.intel.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
 Karol Wachowski <karol.wachowski@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] accel/ivpu: Add handling of
 VPU_JSM_STATUS_MVNCI_CONTEXT_VIOLATION_HW

Hi,

On 4/24/2025 12:34 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 12:22:31PM +0200, Jacek Lawrynowicz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 4/22/2025 2:17 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 11:57:11AM +0200, Jacek Lawrynowicz wrote:
>>>> From: Karol Wachowski <karol.wachowski@...el.com>
>>>>
>>>> commit dad945c27a42dfadddff1049cf5ae417209a8996 upstream.
>>>>
>>>> Trigger recovery of the NPU upon receiving HW context violation from
>>>> the firmware. The context violation error is a fatal error that prevents
>>>> any subsequent jobs from being executed. Without this fix it is
>>>> necessary to reload the driver to restore the NPU operational state.
>>>>
>>>> This is simplified version of upstream commit as the full implementation
>>>> would require all engine reset/resume logic to be backported.
>>>
>>> We REALLY do not like taking patches that are not upstream.  Why not
>>> backport all of the needed patches instead, how many would that be?
>>> Taking one-off patches like this just makes it harder/impossible to
>>> maintain the code over time as further fixes in this same area will NOT
>>> apply properly at all.
>>>
>>> Think about what you want to be touching 5 years from now, a one-off
>>> change that doesn't match the rest of the kernel tree, or something that
>>> is the same?
>>
>> Sure, I'm totally on board with backporting all required patches.
>> I thought it was not possible due to 100 line limit.
>>
>> This would be the minimum set of patches:
>>
>> Patch 1:
>>  drivers/accel/ivpu/ivpu_drv.c   | 32 +++-----------
>>  drivers/accel/ivpu/ivpu_drv.h   |  2 +
>>  drivers/accel/ivpu/ivpu_job.c   | 78 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>  drivers/accel/ivpu/ivpu_job.h   |  1 +
>>  drivers/accel/ivpu/ivpu_mmu.c   |  3 +-
>>  drivers/accel/ivpu/ivpu_sysfs.c |  5 ++-
>>  6 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
>>
>> Patch 2:
>>  drivers/accel/ivpu/ivpu_job.c | 15 ++++++---------
>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> Patch 3:
>>  drivers/accel/ivpu/ivpu_job.c     |   2 +-
>>  drivers/accel/ivpu/ivpu_jsm_msg.c |   3 +-
>>  drivers/accel/ivpu/vpu_boot_api.h |  45 +++--
>>  drivers/accel/ivpu/vpu_jsm_api.h  | 303 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>  4 files changed, 293 insertions(+), 60 deletions(-)
>>
>> Patch 4:
>>  drivers/accel/ivpu/ivpu_job.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> First patch needs some changes to apply correctly to 6.12 but the rest of them apply pretty cleanly.
>> Is this acceptable?
> 
> Totally acceptable, that's trivial compared to many of the larger
> backports we have taken over the years :)

OK, I've sent two separate patchses for 6.12 and 6.14 that contain minimal number of patches.
I've rebased only two patches in each patchsets and the rest is as-is from upstream.
Let me know in case I messed something up.

Regards,
Jacek