linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7] 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: <CAJek3sLVvd_wqHddsuc_n-Ob6Mm1Yyas0RqvZ-Mopy5m6rVidg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 00:55:12 +0530
From: Souradeep Chowdhury <souradeep.chowdhury@....qualcomm.com>
To: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>
Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Souradeep Chowdhury <quic_schowdhu@...cnc.com>,
        Mukesh Ojha <mukesh.ojha@....qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] remoteproc: Add device awake calls in rproc boot and
 shutdown path

On Sun, Sep 21, 2025 at 8:30 AM Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 02:56:15PM +0530, Souradeep Chowdhury wrote:
> > If an user stops and starts rproc by using the sysfs interface, then on
> > pm suspension the firmware fails to load as the request_firmware call
> > under adsp_load relies on usermodehelper process via firmware_fallback_sysfs
> > which gets frozen on pm suspension.
>
> How does it fail? Is the firmware load aborted? Does it time out while
> we're suspended?

Firmware load is aborted due to failure from usermodehelper_read_trylock().
It returns an error and there is no timeout.

>
> The usermodehelper is optional, adsp_load() doesn't rely on
> usermodehelper, it relies on the firmware class, which might perform
> usermodehelper.

yes in this usecase usermodehelper is being used.

>
> Please describe how and why it fail, so that help educate others (me
> included) about what the actual problem you're seeing is.

Sure, will include further details in next version.
>
> > Currently pm_awake calls are present
> > in the recovery path, add the same in start and stop path of rproc for
> > proper loading of the firmware in non-recovery path.
>
> I would expect/hope that the git log tells us that the pm_stay_awake()
> in the recovery path is there to prevent the system from being suspended
> while we're restarting the remotproc, as this is expected to lead to
> functional degradation and suboptimal low power state.

Yes,this was merged as a part of the following patch:
[PATCH] remoteproc: core: Prevent system suspend during remoteproc
recovery - Rishabh Bhatnagar

>
> "They call this function over there" is not sufficient motivation.
>
>
> But just to be clear, I'm not saying that this patch is wrong. I'm
> saying I don't understand your problem/motivation.

I have elaborated further, hope this clarifies the issue.

>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Souradeep Chowdhury <quic_schowdhu@...cnc.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Souradeep Chowdhury <souradeep.chowdhury@....qualcomm.com>
>
> This is both you, no need to carry both.

Ack
>
> > Reviewed-by: Mukesh Ojha <mukesh.ojha@....qualcomm.com>
> > ---
> > Changes in v7
> >
> > *Justify this fix by adding more details in commit message
>
> Please start use b4, so we get proper links to old submissions here.

Ack
>
> Regards,
> Bjorn
>
> > Changes in v6
> >
> > *Add some correction to commit message
> >
> > Changes in v5
> >
> > *Added more details to commit description
> >
> > Changes in v4
> >
> > *Remove stability from mailing list
> > *Remove the extra tab in v3
> > *Change the commit description
> >
> >  drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 4 ++++
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > index c2cf0d277729..5d6c4e694b4c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > @@ -1917,6 +1917,7 @@ int rproc_boot(struct rproc *rproc)
> >               return -EINVAL;
> >       }
> >
> > +     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
> >