On 1/23/2025 6:03 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 05:34:00PM +0530, Ekansh Gupta wrote: >> >> >> On 1/23/2025 4:43 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 03:19:21PM +0530, Ekansh Gupta wrote: >>>> >>>> On 1/23/2025 1:18 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 11:16:41AM +0530, Ekansh Gupta wrote: >>>>>> On 10/7/2024 7:27 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 02:15:15PM GMT, Ekansh Gupta wrote: >>>>>>>> InvokeV2 request is intended to support multiple enhanced invoke >>>>>>>> requests like CRC check, performance counter enablement and polling >>>>>>>> mode for RPC invocations. CRC check is getting enabled as part of >>>>>>>> this patch. CRC check for input and output argument helps in ensuring >>>>>>>> data consistency over a remote call. If user intends to enable CRC >>>>>>>> check, first local user CRC is calculated at user end and a CRC buffer >>>>>>>> is passed to DSP to capture remote CRC values. DSP is expected to >>>>>>>> write to the remote CRC buffer which is then compared at user level >>>>>>>> with the local CRC values. >>>>>>> This doesn't explain why this is necessary. Why do you need to checksum >>>>>>> arguments? >>>>>> This helps if the user suspects any data inconsistencies in the buffers passed to DSP over >>>>>> remote call. This is not enabled by default and user can enable it as per their reqirement. >>>>>> I'll add this information. >>>>> An inconsistency where? Between the kernel and the DSP? Between the user >>>>> and the DSP? Does it cover buffer contents or just the addresses? >>>> Inconsistency between user and DSP. crc_user is calculated at user library before >>>> making ioctl call and it is compared against the crc data which is filled by DSP and >>>> copied to user. >>>> This covers inconsistency in buffer contents. >>> What is the reason for possible inconsistencies? Is it a debugging >>> feature? >> This is a debugging feature. Buffer data corruption might result in inconsistency. >>>>>>> Also, what if the DSP firmware doesn't support CRC? How should userspace >>>>>>> know that? >>>>>> CRC support on DSP is there since long time(>6years). >>>>> This doesn't give us a lot. Upstream kernel supports fastrpc since >>>>> MSM8916 and MSM8996. Do those platforms support CRC? >>>> The metadata buffer as of today also carries space for CRC information: >>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/drivers/misc/fastrpc.c#n877 >>>> >>>> So this is common across all platforms. >>>> >>>> In case CRC is not supported on any older platform, it would result in crc mismatch at user library. >>>> As of now a warning is getting logged there, I can add the information suggesting the failure might >>>> also occur if CRC is not supported. >>> Logs go to /dev/null, they are ignored by users, etc. So either there >>> should be an actual error being returned by the kernel / library, or it >>> can be completely ignored and skipped. >>> >>> So, do MSM8916 / MSM8996 / SDM845 support CRC? If not, that must be >>> handled somehow. >> I see it's supported on SDM845 but not on MSM89##. I'll just send the new patch version for now >> as CRC mismatch failures are getting ignored. > Please clearly document which platforms don't support CRC feature, the > implications and the possible (userspace) impact. E.g. if the kernel > logs a message for each call with failed CRC case, then this might cause > a serious slowdown. Likewise a userspace lib might cause a slowdown. > > In fact, if CRC is a debugging feature, is it going to be enabled or > disabled by default? > >>>>> And if they do, why do we need the invoke_v2? Can we modify existing >>>>> code instead? >>>> invoke_v2 is needed because there is a need to pass user crc pointer over ioctl call which >>>> cannot be achieved using existing code. Also there are plans to add more features to this >>>> invoke_v2 request which will carry some information from user. >>> Is it really extensible without breaking the ABI? >> I'm planning to keep reserved bits in uapi struct for the same. Do you see any >> problem with this? > Please keep Greg's comment in mind - verify that all reserved fields are > zero. Yes, I'll be ensuring checks for reserved fields. > >>>>>> From user space CRC check failure is >>>>>> not fatal and is printed as a warning. But if copy of CRC to user fails, it will result in remote >>>>>> call failure. Should I keep it as fatal considering that ever very old DSP support this or should >>>>>> I consider the copy failure as non-fatal as userspace is treating this as a warning? >>>>> warnings can remain unseen for a long time. Consider a GUI app. Nobody >>>>> is there to view kernel warnings or library output. >>>> Let me see if this can be done. Are you suggesting that the app will be somewhat tracking >>>> if there is any crc check mismatch failures? >>> I suggest returning -EIO to the app. >> I'll check this. >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ekansh Gupta <quic_ekangupt@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> drivers/misc/fastrpc.c | 161 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ >>>>>>>> include/uapi/misc/fastrpc.h | 7 ++ >>>>>>>> 2 files changed, 116 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/misc/fastrpc.c b/drivers/misc/fastrpc.c >>>>>>>> index 74181b8c386b..8e817a763d1d 100644 >>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/misc/fastrpc.c >>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/misc/fastrpc.c >>>>>>>> @@ -573,13 +573,15 @@ static void fastrpc_get_buff_overlaps(struct fastrpc_invoke_ctx *ctx) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> static struct fastrpc_invoke_ctx *fastrpc_context_alloc( >>>>>>>> struct fastrpc_user *user, u32 kernel, u32 sc, >>>>>>>> - struct fastrpc_invoke_args *args) >>>>>>>> + struct fastrpc_invoke_v2 *inv2) >>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>> struct fastrpc_channel_ctx *cctx = user->cctx; >>>>>>>> struct fastrpc_invoke_ctx *ctx = NULL; >>>>>>>> + struct fastrpc_invoke_args *args = NULL; >>>>>>> Why do you need to init to NULL if you are going to set it two lines >>>>>>> below? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> unsigned long flags; >>>>>>>> int ret; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> + args = (struct fastrpc_invoke_args *)inv2->inv.args; >>>>>>> Why does it need a typecast? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ctx = kzalloc(sizeof(*ctx), GFP_KERNEL); >>>>>>>> if (!ctx) >>>>>>>> return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); >>>>>>>> @@ -611,6 +613,7 @@ static struct fastrpc_invoke_ctx *fastrpc_context_alloc( >>>>>>>> /* Released in fastrpc_context_put() */ >>>>>>>> fastrpc_channel_ctx_get(cctx); >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> + ctx->crc = (u32 *)(uintptr_t)inv2->crc; >>>>>>> Oh, but why? Also is it a user pointer or in-kernel data? If it's a >>>>>>> user-based pointer, where is the accessiblity check? Why isn't it >>>>>>> annotated properly? >>>>>> This is a user pointer where the crc data is expected to be copied. There is no >>>>>> other access to this pointer from kernel. I'm planning to change the data type >>>>>> for crc as (void __user*) inside fastrpc_invoke_ctx structure. >>>>> Yes, please. Also make sure that sparse doesn't add any warnings >>>>> regarding pointer conversions. >>>> Ack. >>>>>>>> ctx->sc = sc; >>>>>>>> ctx->retval = -1; >>>>>>>> ctx->pid = current->pid; >>>>>>>> @@ -1070,6 +1073,7 @@ static int fastrpc_put_args(struct fastrpc_invoke_ctx *ctx, >>>>>>>> struct fastrpc_invoke_buf *list; >>>>>>>> struct fastrpc_phy_page *pages; >>>>>>>> u64 *fdlist; >>>>>>>> + u32 *crclist; >>>>>>>> int i, inbufs, outbufs, handles; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> inbufs = REMOTE_SCALARS_INBUFS(ctx->sc); >>>>>>>> @@ -1078,6 +1082,7 @@ static int fastrpc_put_args(struct fastrpc_invoke_ctx *ctx, >>>>>>>> list = fastrpc_invoke_buf_start(rpra, ctx->nscalars); >>>>>>>> pages = fastrpc_phy_page_start(list, ctx->nscalars); >>>>>>>> fdlist = (uint64_t *)(pages + inbufs + outbufs + handles); >>>>>>>> + crclist = (u32 *)(fdlist + FASTRPC_MAX_FDLIST); >>>>>>> I think we should rewrite this parsing somehow. Is the format of data >>>>>>> documented somewhere? >>>>>> fdlist, crclist and poll(planned) are the only pointers that is being used. I'm planning >>>>>> to store these pointers to ctx structure and directly use it wherever needed. This will >>>>>> clean-up this unnecessary calculations at multiple places. >>>>> Please do. Nevertheless, the format also must be documented. >>>> Ack. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> for (i = inbufs; i < ctx->nbufs; ++i) { >>>>>>>> if (!ctx->maps[i]) { >>>>>>>> @@ -1102,6 +1107,12 @@ static int fastrpc_put_args(struct fastrpc_invoke_ctx *ctx, >>>>>>>> fastrpc_map_put(mmap); >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> + if (ctx->crc && crclist && rpra) { >>>>>>>> + if (copy_to_user((void __user *)ctx->crc, crclist, >>>>>>>> + FASTRPC_MAX_CRCLIST * sizeof(u32))) >>>>>>> Oh, so it's a user pointer. Then u32* was completely incorrect. >>>>>>> Also you are copying FASTRPC_MAX_CRCLIST elements. Are all of them >>>>>>> filled? Or are we leaking some data to userspace? >>>>>> Yes, right. Planning clean-up in next patch. >>>>>> >>>>>> All of FASTRPC_MAX_CRCLIST is filled with crc data by DSP so copying should be fine. >>>>> Huh? I definitely want to see documentation for function arguments. >>>> Sure. I'll also modify the metadata layout doc here to add fdlist, CRC and other planned contents. >>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/drivers/misc/fastrpc.c#n842 >>> This is not a documentation. E.g. I can not write code using that >>> description. For example, it mentions neither FDLIST nor CRC. >> I'm planning to add complete documentation for CRC and polling mode in user library project. >> If I need to add documentation in driver, can you pls suggest what is the right place to add >> the information? > Library should be fine. We don't require documenting all hardware in the > kernel. But the uAPI of the driver should be properly described. Understood, thanks. --ekansh > >> Thanks for your comments. >> >> --ekansh >>>>>>>> + return -EFAULT; >>>>>>>> + } >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> return 0; >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>
