linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] remoteproc: core: full attach detach during recovery

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f60385b5-e6b3-4e76-a0c9-e8816388d93a@amd.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 18:41:59 -0500
From: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@....com>
To: Iuliana Prodan <iuliana.prodan@....com>, <andersson@...nel.org>,
	<mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
CC: <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] remoteproc: core: full attach detach during recovery



On 10/29/25 5:49 PM, Iuliana Prodan wrote:
> Hi Tanmay,
> 
> On 10/28/2025 6:57 AM, Tanmay Shah wrote:
>> Current attach on recovery mechanism loads the clean resource table
>> during recovery, but doesn't re-allocate the resources. RPMsg
>> communication will fail after recovery due to this. Fix this
>> incorrect behavior by doing the full detach and attach of remote
>> processor during the recovery. This will load the clean resource table
>> and re-allocate all the resources, which will set up correct vring
>> information in the resource table.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@....com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 22 +++++++++++++---------
>>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/ 
>> remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>> index aada2780b343..f5b078fe056a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>> @@ -1777,11 +1777,11 @@ static int rproc_attach_recovery(struct rproc 
>> *rproc)
>>   {
>>       int ret;
>> -    ret = __rproc_detach(rproc);
>> +    ret = rproc_detach(rproc);
>>       if (ret)
>>           return ret;
>> -    return __rproc_attach(rproc);
>> +    return rproc_attach(rproc);
>>   }
>>   static int rproc_boot_recovery(struct rproc *rproc)
>> @@ -1829,6 +1829,9 @@ int rproc_trigger_recovery(struct rproc *rproc)
>>       struct device *dev = &rproc->dev;
>>       int ret;
>> +    if (rproc_has_feature(rproc, RPROC_FEAT_ATTACH_ON_RECOVERY))
>> +        return rproc_attach_recovery(rproc);
>> +
>>       ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&rproc->lock);
>>       if (ret)
>>           return ret;
>> @@ -1839,10 +1842,7 @@ int rproc_trigger_recovery(struct rproc *rproc)
>>       dev_err(dev, "recovering %s\n", rproc->name);
> 
> Please move the log message above the new early return so both paths log 
> recovery.
>> -    if (rproc_has_feature(rproc, RPROC_FEAT_ATTACH_ON_RECOVERY))
>> -        ret = rproc_attach_recovery(rproc);
>> -    else
>> -        ret = rproc_boot_recovery(rproc);
>> +    ret = rproc_boot_recovery(rproc);
>>   unlock_mutex:
>>       mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
>> @@ -1860,6 +1860,7 @@ static void rproc_crash_handler_work(struct 
>> work_struct *work)
>>   {
>>       struct rproc *rproc = container_of(work, struct rproc, 
>> crash_handler);
>>       struct device *dev = &rproc->dev;
>> +    int ret;
>>       dev_dbg(dev, "enter %s\n", __func__);
>> @@ -1883,8 +1884,11 @@ static void rproc_crash_handler_work(struct 
>> work_struct *work)
>>       mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
>> -    if (!rproc->recovery_disabled)
>> -        rproc_trigger_recovery(rproc);
>> +    if (!rproc->recovery_disabled) {
>> +        ret = rproc_trigger_recovery(rproc);
>> +        if (ret)
>> +            dev_warn(dev, "rproc recovery failed, err %d\n", ret);
>> +    }
>>   out:
>>       pm_relax(rproc->dev.parent);
>> @@ -2057,7 +2061,7 @@ int rproc_detach(struct rproc *rproc)
>>           return ret;
>>       }
>> -    if (rproc->state != RPROC_ATTACHED) {
>> +    if (rproc->state != RPROC_ATTACHED && rproc->state != 
>> RPROC_CRASHED) {
>>           ret = -EINVAL;
>>           goto out;
>>       }
> Tested this on i.MX8M Plus using the imx_dsp_rproc driver, which 
> supports recovery.
> Everything looks good, but on imx_dsp_rproc we use rproc_boot_recovery, 
> not rproc_attach_recovery, where most of the changes happened.
> 

Hello,

Thanks for testing the patch. Correct, if attach recovery is not used 
then the patch shouldn't affect functionality of any platform driver.

Thanks,
Tanmay

> Iulia