| Message ID | 1472676622-32533-14-git-send-email-loic.pallardy@st.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Loic Pallardy wrote: > This patch renames rproc_add_resource_table_entry in __add_rsc_tbl_entry > to have shorter function name and adds spare resource support. > To guarantee remoteproc won't overwrite firmware data when copying > back modified resource table, __add_rsc_tbl_entry verifies first that > resource table owns a spare resource and uses spare bytes to create > a new resource entry. Spare resource is updated according to changes. > > Signed-off-by: Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@st.com> > --- > drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------- > 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > index aff1a00..25a429b 100644 > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > @@ -1107,39 +1107,34 @@ static int __update_rsc_tbl_entry(struct rproc *rproc, > return !updated; > } > > -static struct resource_table* > -rproc_add_resource_table_entry(struct rproc *rproc, > +static int __add_rsc_tbl_entry(struct rproc *rproc, Once again, I prefer plain English over cryptic abbreviations. Makes things much more difficult for developers who are new to, or are just dipping into RemoteProc code. > struct rproc_request_resource *request, > - struct resource_table *old_table, int *tablesz) > + struct resource_table *table, int tablesz) > { > - struct resource_table *table; > struct fw_rsc_hdr h; > + struct fw_rsc_spare spare; > void *new_rsc_loc; > void *fw_header_loc; > void *start_of_rscs; > int new_rsc_offset; > - int size = *tablesz; > - int i; > + int new_spare_offset; > + int i, spare_index = 0; > > h.type = request->type; > > - new_rsc_offset = size; > + /* check available spare size */ In keeping with the existing comments, please use correct grammar. Capital letters to start and for names etc. Much more professional IMO. > + spare.len = __get_rsc_tbl_spare_size(rproc, table, tablesz, &spare_index); > + if (spare.len < (sizeof(h) + request->size + 4)) /* new offset entry */ Not sure that comment makes the code any clearer? All you're doing here is checking if we have enough space, right? I think the 4 is a 'magic' number. I'd either provide a comment (like I did below), or define it. > + return -EPERM; What does this have to do with permissions? > - /* > - * Allocate another contiguous chunk of memory, large enough to > - * contain the new, expanded resource table. > - * > - * The +4 is for the extra offset[] element in the top level header > - */ > - size += sizeof(struct fw_rsc_hdr) + request->size + 4; > - table = devm_kmemdup(&rproc->dev, old_table, size, GFP_KERNEL); > - if (!table) > - return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); > + new_rsc_offset = table->offset[spare_index]; > > /* Shunt table by 4 Bytes to account for the extra offset[] element */ > start_of_rscs = (void *)table + table->offset[0]; > memmove(start_of_rscs + 4, > start_of_rscs, new_rsc_offset - table->offset[0]); > + > + spare.len -= 4; This probably deserves a comment too. /* * The spare area is finite. Since we are increasing the size of the * header and shunting the tables, we need to reduce the size of the * available 'spare' area by the shunt size. */ > new_rsc_offset += 4; > > /* Update existing resource entry's offsets */ > @@ -1153,13 +1148,27 @@ rproc_add_resource_table_entry(struct rproc *rproc, > /* Copy new firmware header into table */ > fw_header_loc = (void *)table + new_rsc_offset; > memcpy(fw_header_loc, &h, sizeof(h)); > + spare.len -= sizeof(h); > > /* Copy new resource entry into table */ > new_rsc_loc = (void *)fw_header_loc + sizeof(h); > memcpy(new_rsc_loc, request->resource, request->size); > + spare.len -= request->size; > > - *tablesz = size; > - return table; > + /* create new rsc spare resource at the end of remaining spare */ Same comment about using nice grammar in comments. > + new_spare_offset = new_rsc_offset + sizeof(h) + request->size; > + h.type = RSC_SPARE; > + > + fw_header_loc = (void *)table + new_spare_offset; > + memcpy(fw_header_loc, &h, sizeof(h)); > + > + new_rsc_loc = (void *)fw_header_loc + sizeof(h); > + memcpy(new_rsc_loc, &spare, sizeof(spare)); > + > + /* update spare offset */ > + table->offset[spare_index] = new_spare_offset; > + > + return 0; > } > > static struct resource_table* > @@ -1203,12 +1212,9 @@ rproc_apply_resource_overrides(struct rproc *rproc, > continue; > > /* Didn't find matching resource entry -- creating a new one. */ > - table = rproc_add_resource_table_entry(rproc, resource, > - table, &size); > - if (IS_ERR(table)) > + updated = __add_rsc_tbl_entry(rproc, resource, table, size); > + if (updated) > goto out; > - > - *orig_table = table; > } > > rproc_dump_resource_table(rproc, table, size);
On 09/08/2016 11:33 AM, Lee Jones wrote: > On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Loic Pallardy wrote: > >> This patch renames rproc_add_resource_table_entry in __add_rsc_tbl_entry >> to have shorter function name and adds spare resource support. >> To guarantee remoteproc won't overwrite firmware data when copying >> back modified resource table, __add_rsc_tbl_entry verifies first that >> resource table owns a spare resource and uses spare bytes to create >> a new resource entry. Spare resource is updated according to changes. >> >> Signed-off-by: Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@st.com> >> --- >> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------- >> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c >> index aff1a00..25a429b 100644 >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c >> @@ -1107,39 +1107,34 @@ static int __update_rsc_tbl_entry(struct rproc *rproc, >> return !updated; >> } >> >> -static struct resource_table* >> -rproc_add_resource_table_entry(struct rproc *rproc, >> +static int __add_rsc_tbl_entry(struct rproc *rproc, > > Once again, I prefer plain English over cryptic abbreviations. Makes > things much more difficult for developers who are new to, or are just > dipping into RemoteProc code. OK > >> struct rproc_request_resource *request, >> - struct resource_table *old_table, int *tablesz) >> + struct resource_table *table, int tablesz) >> { >> - struct resource_table *table; >> struct fw_rsc_hdr h; >> + struct fw_rsc_spare spare; >> void *new_rsc_loc; >> void *fw_header_loc; >> void *start_of_rscs; >> int new_rsc_offset; >> - int size = *tablesz; >> - int i; >> + int new_spare_offset; >> + int i, spare_index = 0; >> >> h.type = request->type; >> >> - new_rsc_offset = size; >> + /* check available spare size */ > > In keeping with the existing comments, please use correct grammar. > > Capital letters to start and for names etc. > > Much more professional IMO. I'll correct > >> + spare.len = __get_rsc_tbl_spare_size(rproc, table, tablesz, &spare_index); >> + if (spare.len < (sizeof(h) + request->size + 4)) /* new offset entry */ > > Not sure that comment makes the code any clearer? > > All you're doing here is checking if we have enough space, right? > > I think the 4 is a 'magic' number. I'd either provide a comment (like > I did below), or define it. I'll add a comment as you did to explain the "4". > >> + return -EPERM; > > What does this have to do with permissions? Yes sure, I'll replaced by -EINVAL as resource too large compare to spare area capability. > >> - /* >> - * Allocate another contiguous chunk of memory, large enough to >> - * contain the new, expanded resource table. >> - * >> - * The +4 is for the extra offset[] element in the top level header >> - */ >> - size += sizeof(struct fw_rsc_hdr) + request->size + 4; >> - table = devm_kmemdup(&rproc->dev, old_table, size, GFP_KERNEL); >> - if (!table) >> - return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); >> + new_rsc_offset = table->offset[spare_index]; >> >> /* Shunt table by 4 Bytes to account for the extra offset[] element */ >> start_of_rscs = (void *)table + table->offset[0]; >> memmove(start_of_rscs + 4, >> start_of_rscs, new_rsc_offset - table->offset[0]); >> + >> + spare.len -= 4; > > This probably deserves a comment too. I'll add a comment too > > /* > * The spare area is finite. Since we are increasing the size of the > * header and shunting the tables, we need to reduce the size of the > * available 'spare' area by the shunt size. > */ > >> new_rsc_offset += 4; >> >> /* Update existing resource entry's offsets */ >> @@ -1153,13 +1148,27 @@ rproc_add_resource_table_entry(struct rproc *rproc, >> /* Copy new firmware header into table */ >> fw_header_loc = (void *)table + new_rsc_offset; >> memcpy(fw_header_loc, &h, sizeof(h)); >> + spare.len -= sizeof(h); >> >> /* Copy new resource entry into table */ >> new_rsc_loc = (void *)fw_header_loc + sizeof(h); >> memcpy(new_rsc_loc, request->resource, request->size); >> + spare.len -= request->size; >> >> - *tablesz = size; >> - return table; >> + /* create new rsc spare resource at the end of remaining spare */ > > Same comment about using nice grammar in comments. Ok Thanks, Loic > >> + new_spare_offset = new_rsc_offset + sizeof(h) + request->size; >> + h.type = RSC_SPARE; >> + >> + fw_header_loc = (void *)table + new_spare_offset; >> + memcpy(fw_header_loc, &h, sizeof(h)); >> + >> + new_rsc_loc = (void *)fw_header_loc + sizeof(h); >> + memcpy(new_rsc_loc, &spare, sizeof(spare)); >> + >> + /* update spare offset */ >> + table->offset[spare_index] = new_spare_offset; >> + >> + return 0; >> } >> >> static struct resource_table* >> @@ -1203,12 +1212,9 @@ rproc_apply_resource_overrides(struct rproc *rproc, >> continue; >> >> /* Didn't find matching resource entry -- creating a new one. */ >> - table = rproc_add_resource_table_entry(rproc, resource, >> - table, &size); >> - if (IS_ERR(table)) >> + updated = __add_rsc_tbl_entry(rproc, resource, table, size); >> + if (updated) >> goto out; >> - >> - *orig_table = table; >> } >> >> rproc_dump_resource_table(rproc, table, size); > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-remoteproc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, 08 Sep 2016, loic pallardy wrote: > > > On 09/08/2016 11:33 AM, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Loic Pallardy wrote: > > > > > This patch renames rproc_add_resource_table_entry in __add_rsc_tbl_entry > > > to have shorter function name and adds spare resource support. > > > To guarantee remoteproc won't overwrite firmware data when copying > > > back modified resource table, __add_rsc_tbl_entry verifies first that > > > resource table owns a spare resource and uses spare bytes to create > > > a new resource entry. Spare resource is updated according to changes. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@st.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------- > > > 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > > > index aff1a00..25a429b 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > > > @@ -1107,39 +1107,34 @@ static int __update_rsc_tbl_entry(struct rproc *rproc, > > > return !updated; > > > } [...] > > > + spare.len = __get_rsc_tbl_spare_size(rproc, table, tablesz, &spare_index); > > > + if (spare.len < (sizeof(h) + request->size + 4)) /* new offset entry */ > > > + return -EPERM; > > > > What does this have to do with permissions? > Yes sure, I'll replaced by -EINVAL as resource too large compare to spare > area capability. Yes, or perhaps -ENOSPC? [...]
diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c index aff1a00..25a429b 100644 --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c @@ -1107,39 +1107,34 @@ static int __update_rsc_tbl_entry(struct rproc *rproc, return !updated; } -static struct resource_table* -rproc_add_resource_table_entry(struct rproc *rproc, +static int __add_rsc_tbl_entry(struct rproc *rproc, struct rproc_request_resource *request, - struct resource_table *old_table, int *tablesz) + struct resource_table *table, int tablesz) { - struct resource_table *table; struct fw_rsc_hdr h; + struct fw_rsc_spare spare; void *new_rsc_loc; void *fw_header_loc; void *start_of_rscs; int new_rsc_offset; - int size = *tablesz; - int i; + int new_spare_offset; + int i, spare_index = 0; h.type = request->type; - new_rsc_offset = size; + /* check available spare size */ + spare.len = __get_rsc_tbl_spare_size(rproc, table, tablesz, &spare_index); + if (spare.len < (sizeof(h) + request->size + 4)) /* new offset entry */ + return -EPERM; - /* - * Allocate another contiguous chunk of memory, large enough to - * contain the new, expanded resource table. - * - * The +4 is for the extra offset[] element in the top level header - */ - size += sizeof(struct fw_rsc_hdr) + request->size + 4; - table = devm_kmemdup(&rproc->dev, old_table, size, GFP_KERNEL); - if (!table) - return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); + new_rsc_offset = table->offset[spare_index]; /* Shunt table by 4 Bytes to account for the extra offset[] element */ start_of_rscs = (void *)table + table->offset[0]; memmove(start_of_rscs + 4, start_of_rscs, new_rsc_offset - table->offset[0]); + + spare.len -= 4; new_rsc_offset += 4; /* Update existing resource entry's offsets */ @@ -1153,13 +1148,27 @@ rproc_add_resource_table_entry(struct rproc *rproc, /* Copy new firmware header into table */ fw_header_loc = (void *)table + new_rsc_offset; memcpy(fw_header_loc, &h, sizeof(h)); + spare.len -= sizeof(h); /* Copy new resource entry into table */ new_rsc_loc = (void *)fw_header_loc + sizeof(h); memcpy(new_rsc_loc, request->resource, request->size); + spare.len -= request->size; - *tablesz = size; - return table; + /* create new rsc spare resource at the end of remaining spare */ + new_spare_offset = new_rsc_offset + sizeof(h) + request->size; + h.type = RSC_SPARE; + + fw_header_loc = (void *)table + new_spare_offset; + memcpy(fw_header_loc, &h, sizeof(h)); + + new_rsc_loc = (void *)fw_header_loc + sizeof(h); + memcpy(new_rsc_loc, &spare, sizeof(spare)); + + /* update spare offset */ + table->offset[spare_index] = new_spare_offset; + + return 0; } static struct resource_table* @@ -1203,12 +1212,9 @@ rproc_apply_resource_overrides(struct rproc *rproc, continue; /* Didn't find matching resource entry -- creating a new one. */ - table = rproc_add_resource_table_entry(rproc, resource, - table, &size); - if (IS_ERR(table)) + updated = __add_rsc_tbl_entry(rproc, resource, table, size); + if (updated) goto out; - - *orig_table = table; } rproc_dump_resource_table(rproc, table, size);
This patch renames rproc_add_resource_table_entry in __add_rsc_tbl_entry to have shorter function name and adds spare resource support. To guarantee remoteproc won't overwrite firmware data when copying back modified resource table, __add_rsc_tbl_entry verifies first that resource table owns a spare resource and uses spare bytes to create a new resource entry. Spare resource is updated according to changes. Signed-off-by: Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@st.com> --- drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------- 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)