Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1651582
| From | Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RESEND: PATCH v4 3/4] remoteproc: qcom: Make secure world call for mem ownership switch |
| Date | 2017-05-26 21:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tLsWe-1pQ-33@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <tHP50-vb-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <tHP50-vb-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <tLd18-8h5-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <tLntv-6pE-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Fri 26 May 06:19 PDT 2017, Dwivedi, Avaneesh Kumar (avani) wrote: > > > On 5/26/2017 7:46 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > On Tue 16 May 11:02 PDT 2017, Avaneesh Kumar Dwivedi wrote: > > > @@ -471,6 +517,11 @@ static int q6v5_mpss_init_image(struct q6v5 *qproc, const struct firmware *fw) > > > dev_err(qproc->dev, > > > "metadata authentication failed: %d\n", ret); > > > + /* Metadata authentication done, remove modem access */ > > > + ret = q6v5_assign_mem_to_linux(qproc, phys, fw->size); > > > + if (ret) > > > + dev_err(qproc->dev, > > > + "Failed to reclaim metadata memory, ret - %d\n", ret); > > If this assignment fails (for any reason) we can't return the memory to > > the free pool in Linux, because at some point in the future these pages > > will be allocated to someone else resulting in a memory access violation > > scenario that will be just terrible to debug. > > > > I do however not have a better idea at the moment than just leaking the > > memory. > Then shall we BUG_ON here itself? Here we have the chance to "handle" the problem (by leaking the memory), so it's not a catastrophic error. But perhaps better to replace the dev_err() with a WARN(ret, "failed to reclaim memory\n"); that way this issue will stand out in the log. [..] > > > @@ -656,16 +719,21 @@ static int q6v5_start(struct rproc *rproc) [..] > > > } > > > + ret = q6v5_assign_mem_to_linux(qproc, > > > + qproc->mba_phys, qproc->mba_size); > > > + if (ret) > > > + dev_err(qproc->dev, > > > + "Failed to reclaim mba memory, ret - %d\n", ret); > > I think it's okay for symmetrical purposes to keep the memory assigned > > to the remote until we call stop(). > Actually MBA image is transferred into internal memory of q6 and does not > run from DDR > that is why it is OK to release it here. let me know if you dont want to do > that. Leave it here, but please add a comment above this snippet saying something like: /* * The MBA is transferred to internal memory of the Q6 and no longer * need access. */ [..] > > > + assign_mem_result = > > > + q6v5_assign_mem_to_linux(qproc, > > > + qproc->mba_phys, qproc->mba_size); > > Shouldn't we move them even further down? > There does not seem any restriction w.r.t. keeping it here. > Do you think any side effect ? No, I'm fine with this if you say that the MPSS is no longer executing anything at this point. Thanks, Bjorn
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [RESEND: PATCH v4 3/4] remoteproc: qcom: Make secure world call for mem ownership switch Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> - 2017-05-26 04:20 +0200
Re: [RESEND: PATCH v4 3/4] remoteproc: qcom: Make secure world call for mem ownership switch "Dwivedi, Avaneesh Kumar (avani)" <akdwived@codeaurora.org> - 2017-05-26 15:30 +0200
Re: [RESEND: PATCH v4 3/4] remoteproc: qcom: Make secure world call for mem ownership switch Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> - 2017-05-26 21:20 +0200
csiph-web