Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 04/10] drivers: qcom: rpmh: add RPMH helper functions | From | Raju P L S S S N <> | Date | Wed, 23 May 2018 17:49:17 +0530 |
| |
Hi,
On 5/15/2018 11:52 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org> wrote: >> On Fri, May 11 2018 at 14:17 -0600, Doug Anderson wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> +int rpmh_write(const struct device *dev, enum rpmh_state state, >>>> + const struct tcs_cmd *cmd, u32 n) >>>> +{ >>>> + DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK(compl); >>>> + DEFINE_RPMH_MSG_ONSTACK(dev, state, &compl, rpm_msg); >>>> + int ret; >>>> + >>>> + if (!cmd || !n || n > MAX_RPMH_PAYLOAD) >>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>> + >>>> + memcpy(rpm_msg.cmd, cmd, n * sizeof(*cmd)); >>>> + rpm_msg.msg.num_cmds = n; >>>> + >>>> + ret = __rpmh_write(dev, state, &rpm_msg); >>>> + if (ret) >>>> + return ret; >>>> + >>>> + ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&compl, RPMH_TIMEOUT_MS); >>> >>> >>> IMO it's almost never a good idea to use wait_for_completion_timeout() >>> together with a completion that's declared on the stack. If you >>> somehow insist that this is a good idea then I need to see incredibly >>> clear and obvious code/comments that say why it's impossible that the >>> process might somehow try to signal the completion _after_ >>> RPMH_TIMEOUT_MS has expired. >>> >>> Specifically if the timeout happens but the process could still signal >>> a completion later then they will access random data on the stack of a >>> function that has already returned. This causes ridiculously >>> difficult-to-debug crashes. >>> >>> >>> NOTE: You've got timeout set to 10 seconds here. Is that really even >>> useful? IMO just call wait_for_completion() without a timeout. It's >>> much better to have a nice clean hang than a random stack corruption. >>> >>> >> The 10 sec timeout will guarantee that we will not get a response at all >> anymore for the request. Usually requests can be considered failed if >> there is no response in a few tens of microseconds. 10 sec is just an >> arbitarily large number. >> >> The reason we use timeout is that once the timeout happens, we know we >> have failed, we could trigger a watchdog or crash the system. This is >> very important for our productization in debugging RPMH failures. A >> hang would not always trigger a watchdog and the failure would be silent >> and possibly fatal but hard to debug. > > If you intend the system to crash when this timeout happens then IMHO > add a BUG_ON. Then I won't worry about something coming around later > and clobbering the stack. > > -Doug >
Sure. Will add BUG_ON in next patch.
Thanks, Raju.
| |