| 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: <fa42adf0-8f15-ad4c-3788-578b1bee1c72@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2025 22:49:26 +0530
From: Shivendra Pratap <shivendra.pratap@....qualcomm.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Sebastian Reichel
<sre@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Souvik Chakravarty <Souvik.Chakravarty@....com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley
<conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Andy Yan <andy.yan@...k-chips.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>,
cros-qcom-dts-watchers@...omium.org, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>,
Moritz Fischer <moritz.fischer@...us.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>,
Mukesh Ojha <mukesh.ojha@....qualcomm.com>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
Andre Draszik
<andre.draszik@...aro.org>,
Kathiravan Thirumoorthy <kathiravan.thirumoorthy@....qualcomm.com>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@...cinc.com>,
Srinivas Kandagatla <srini@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 02/14] power: reset: reboot-mode: Add device tree
node-based registration
On 10/15/2025 8:10 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 at 06:38, Shivendra Pratap
> <shivendra.pratap@....qualcomm.com> wrote:
>>
>> The reboot-mode driver does not have a strict requirement for
>> device-based registration. It primarily uses the device's of_node
>> to read mode-<cmd> properties and the device pointer for logging.
>>
>> Remove the dependency on struct device and introduce support for
>> firmware node (fwnode) based registration. This enables drivers
>> that are not associated with a struct device to leverage the
>> reboot-mode framework.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shivendra Pratap <shivendra.pratap@....qualcomm.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/power/reset/reboot-mode.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>> include/linux/reboot-mode.h | 3 ++-
>> 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/power/reset/reboot-mode.c b/drivers/power/reset/reboot-mode.c
>> index 8fc3e14638ea757c8dc3808c240ff569cbd74786..c8f71e6f661ae14eb72bdcb1f412cd05faee3dd9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/power/reset/reboot-mode.c
>> +++ b/drivers/power/reset/reboot-mode.c
>> @@ -3,13 +3,17 @@
>> * Copyright (c) 2016, Fuzhou Rockchip Electronics Co., Ltd
>> */
>>
>> +#define pr_fmt(fmt) "reboot-mode: " fmt
>> +
>> #include <linux/device.h>
>> #include <linux/init.h>
>> #include <linux/kernel.h>
>> +#include <linux/list.h>
>> #include <linux/module.h>
>> #include <linux/of.h>
>> #include <linux/reboot.h>
>> #include <linux/reboot-mode.h>
>> +#include <linux/slab.h>
>>
>> #define PREFIX "mode-"
>>
>> @@ -69,17 +73,26 @@ static int reboot_mode_notify(struct notifier_block *this,
>> /**
>> * reboot_mode_register - register a reboot mode driver
>> * @reboot: reboot mode driver
>> + * @fwnode: Firmware node with reboot-mode configuration
>> *
>> * Returns: 0 on success or a negative error code on failure.
>> */
>> -int reboot_mode_register(struct reboot_mode_driver *reboot)
>> +int reboot_mode_register(struct reboot_mode_driver *reboot, struct fwnode_handle *fwnode)
>> {
>> struct mode_info *info;
>> + struct mode_info *next;
>> + struct device_node *np;
>> struct property *prop;
>> - struct device_node *np = reboot->dev->of_node;
>> size_t len = strlen(PREFIX);
>> int ret;
>>
>> + if (!fwnode)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + np = to_of_node(fwnode);
>> + if (!np)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&reboot->head);
>>
>> mutex_init(&reboot->rb_lock);
>> @@ -89,28 +102,28 @@ int reboot_mode_register(struct reboot_mode_driver *reboot)
>> if (strncmp(prop->name, PREFIX, len))
>> continue;
>>
>> - info = devm_kzalloc(reboot->dev, sizeof(*info), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> This change is good - devres should not be used in subsystem library
> code, only in drivers - but it doesn't seem to belong here, can you
> please separate it out and make it backportable?
sure. Just to confirm we should separate out the devm_kzalloc part of the
change and add a fixes tag.
>
>> + info = kzalloc(sizeof(*info), GFP_KERNEL);
>> if (!info) {
>> ret = -ENOMEM;
>> goto error;
>> }
>>
>> if (of_property_read_u32(np, prop->name, &info->magic)) {
>> - dev_err(reboot->dev, "reboot mode %s without magic number\n",
>> - info->mode);
>> - devm_kfree(reboot->dev, info);
>> + pr_err("reboot mode %s without magic number\n", info->mode);
>> + kfree(info);
>> continue;
>> }
>>
>> info->mode = kstrdup_const(prop->name + len, GFP_KERNEL);
>> if (!info->mode) {
>> ret = -ENOMEM;
>> + kfree(info);
>> goto error;
>> } else if (info->mode[0] == '\0') {
>> kfree_const(info->mode);
>> + kfree(info);
>> ret = -EINVAL;
>> - dev_err(reboot->dev, "invalid mode name(%s): too short!\n",
>> - prop->name);
>> + pr_err("invalid mode name(%s): too short!\n", prop->name);
>> goto error;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -123,8 +136,11 @@ int reboot_mode_register(struct reboot_mode_driver *reboot)
>> return 0;
>>
>> error:
>> - list_for_each_entry(info, &reboot->head, list)
>> + list_for_each_entry_safe(info, next, &reboot->head, list) {
>> + list_del(&info->list);
>
> Same here, not deleting the entries currently seems like a bug? Do we
> depend on the driver detach to clean up the resources on failure?
sure, so this should also go as fixes? and should we remove the other
dev_err(printk) also as fixes? or that can still got with the change
where we add fwnode based registration?
thanks for review!
-
Shivendra
Powered by blists - more mailing lists