| 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: <20250820111448.tjaz2wld2nxg52aq@hu-mojha-hyd.qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2025 16:44:48 +0530
From: Mukesh Ojha <mukesh.ojha@....qualcomm.com>
To: Stephan Gerhold <stephan.gerhold@...aro.org>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>,
Vikash Garodia <quic_vgarodia@...cinc.com>,
Dikshita Agarwal <quic_dikshita@...cinc.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
Abhinav Kumar <abhinav.kumar@...ux.dev>,
Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/11] remoteproc: pas: Extend parse_fw callback to
parse resource table
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 10:36:10AM +0200, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 10:24:44PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> > Extend parse_fw callback to include SMC call to get resource
> > table from TrustZone to leverage resource table parse and
> > mapping and unmapping code reuse from the framework.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mukesh Ojha <mukesh.ojha@....qualcomm.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c | 1 -
> > include/linux/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.h | 2 ++
> > 3 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c
> > index 09cada92dfd5..1e0f09bf1ef2 100644
> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c
> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c
> > @@ -408,6 +408,35 @@ static void *qcom_pas_da_to_va(struct rproc *rproc, u64 da, size_t len, bool *is
> > return pas->mem_region + offset;
> > }
> >
> > +static int qcom_pas_parse_firmware(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> > +{
> > + struct qcom_pas *pas = rproc->priv;
> > + size_t output_rt_size = MAX_RSCTABLE_SIZE;
> > + void *output_rt;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = qcom_register_dump_segments(rproc, fw);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(pas->dev, "Error in registering dump segments\n");
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (!rproc->has_iommu)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + ret = qcom_scm_pas_get_rsc_table(pas->pas_id, NULL, 0, &output_rt, &output_rt_size);
>
> In PATCH 07/11 you have support for "static" resources that can be part
> of the firmware binary, but then you never make use of it. Like in the
> iris patch you just give in NULL, 0 for input_rt, even though,
> (presumably?) the remoteproc framework has support for parsing the
> resource table from the ELF firmware image.
Should have added a check here
ret = rproc_elf_load_rsc_table(rproc, fw);
if (ret)
dev_info(&rproc->dev, "Error in loading resource table in firmware\n");
ret = qcom_scm_pas_get_rsc_table(pas->pas_id, rproc->table_ptr, rproc->table_sz, &output_rt, &output_rt_size);
...
..
return ret;
..
}
> I would suggest adding a comment here justifying this and perhaps
> something to the commit message. I do see value in having the
> qcom_scm_pas_get_rsc_table() properly defined with input RT support, but
> it's not obvious from the description of your patches that this is
> effectively dead code right now(?).
Sure, will add the comment where ever, I am going to pass NULL, 0, which
is for like IRIS. You rightly said, remoteproc can have its input_rt
by checking it in firmware binary have resource table while for others like
iris/venus etc. support is not there now but can be added in future.
-Mukesh
>
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(pas->dev, "error %d getting resource_table\n", ret);
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > +
> > + rproc->cached_table = output_rt;
> > + rproc->table_ptr = rproc->cached_table;
> > + rproc->table_sz = output_rt_size;
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > static unsigned long qcom_pas_panic(struct rproc *rproc)
> > {
> > struct qcom_pas *pas = rproc->priv;
> > @@ -420,7 +449,7 @@ static const struct rproc_ops qcom_pas_ops = {
> > .start = qcom_pas_start,
> > .stop = qcom_pas_stop,
> > .da_to_va = qcom_pas_da_to_va,
> > - .parse_fw = qcom_register_dump_segments,
> > + .parse_fw = qcom_pas_parse_firmware,
> > .load = qcom_pas_load,
> > .panic = qcom_pas_panic,
> > };
> > @@ -430,7 +459,7 @@ static const struct rproc_ops qcom_pas_minidump_ops = {
> > .start = qcom_pas_start,
> > .stop = qcom_pas_stop,
> > .da_to_va = qcom_pas_da_to_va,
> > - .parse_fw = qcom_register_dump_segments,
> > + .parse_fw = qcom_pas_parse_firmware,
> > .load = qcom_pas_load,
> > .panic = qcom_pas_panic,
> > .coredump = qcom_pas_minidump,
> > diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c
> > index ea7034c4b996..8456cca3f3e0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c
> > +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c
> > @@ -22,7 +22,6 @@
> > #include <linux/slab.h>
> > #include <linux/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.h>
> >
> > -#define MAX_RSCTABLE_SIZE SZ_16K;
>
> I'm confused why there is a semicolon here suddenly. Did you edit this
> patch by hand?
>
> Applying: remoteproc: pas: Extend parse_fw callback to parse resource table
> Patch failed at 0009 remoteproc: pas: Extend parse_fw callback to parse resource table
> error: patch failed: drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c:22
> error: drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c: patch does not apply
Yes, I did this edit just before sending when checkpatch caught this.
Will avoid this in future.
>
> > #define RSC_TABLE_HASH_BITS 5 // 32 buckets
> >
> > DEFINE_HASHTABLE(qcom_pas_rsc_table_map, RSC_TABLE_HASH_BITS);
> > diff --git a/include/linux/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.h b/include/linux/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.h
> > index 62f239f64dfb..92ad862e733e 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.h
> > @@ -8,6 +8,8 @@
> > #define QCOM_MDT_TYPE_HASH (2 << 24)
> > #define QCOM_MDT_RELOCATABLE BIT(27)
> >
> > +#define MAX_RSCTABLE_SIZE SZ_16K
> > +
> > struct device;
> > struct firmware;
> > struct qcom_scm_pas_ctx;
>
> You added this define yourself in PATCH 08/11, so just add it in the
> right place directly. Make sure you scroll through your patch set before
> sending to make sure all changes are in the right commit. :-)
I did this intentionally, because there is outside user of this macro
with this patch.
>
> Thanks,
> Stephan
--
-Mukesh Ojha
Powered by blists - more mailing lists