On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 03:50:25PM -0700, Chris Lew wrote:
>
>
> On 5/28/2024 2:55 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 06:26:42PM GMT, Chris Lew wrote:
> > > Add qcom_smem_bust_hwspin_lock_by_host to enable remoteproc to bust the
> > > hwspin_lock owned by smem. In the event the remoteproc crashes
> > > unexpectedly, the remoteproc driver can invoke this API to try and bust
> > > the hwspin_lock and release the lock if still held by the remoteproc
> > > device.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Chris Lew <quic_clew@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/soc/qcom/smem.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > include/linux/soc/qcom/smem.h | 2 ++
> > > 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/smem.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/smem.c
> > > index 7191fa0c087f..683599990387 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/smem.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/smem.c
> ...
> > > + *
> > > + * Context: Process context.
> > > + *
> > > + * Returns: 0 on success, otherwise negative errno.
> > > + */
> > > +int qcom_smem_bust_hwspin_lock_by_host(unsigned host)
> > > +{
> > > + if (!__smem)
> > > + return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> >
> > This would be called at a time where -EPROBE_DEFER isn't appropriate,
> > the client should invoke qcom_smem_is_available() at probe time to guard
> > against this.
> >
>
> Should we keep the null pointer check to prevent null pointer dereference
> and return 0? Or would it be better to allow the null pointer deference to
> go through so we can catch misuse of the API and ask clients to use
> qcom_smem_is_available()?
>
I like the helpful callstack you get from the NULL pointer
dereference...
Regards,
Bjorn
