Re: [PATCH v5 5/7] remoteproc: core: support of the tee interface

From: Mathieu Poirier
Date: Mon Jun 03 2024 - 10:24:43 EST

Next message: Alexey Dobriyan: "Re: [PATCH] selftests: proc: remove unreached code and fix build warning"
Previous message: Yazen Ghannam: "Re: [PATCH 3/9] x86/mce: Increment MCP count only for timer calls"
In reply to: Arnaud POULIQUEN: "Re: [PATCH v5 5/7] remoteproc: core: support of the tee interface"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 at 02:22, Arnaud POULIQUEN
<arnaud.pouliquen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello Mathieu,
>
> On 5/31/24 19:28, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 09:42:26AM +0200, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote:
> >> Hello Mathieu,
> >>
> >> On 5/29/24 22:35, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> >>> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 09:13:26AM +0200, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote:
> >>>> Hello Mathieu,
> >>>>
> >>>> On 5/28/24 23:30, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 10:09:59AM +0200, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote:
> >>>>>> 1) on start:
> >>>>>> - Using the TEE loader, the resource table is loaded by an external entity.
> >>>>>> In such case the resource table address is not find from the firmware but
> >>>>>> provided by the TEE remoteproc framework.
> >>>>>> Use the rproc_get_loaded_rsc_table instead of rproc_find_loaded_rsc_table
> >>>>>> - test that rproc->cached_table is not null before performing the memcpy
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2)on stop
> >>>>>> The use of the cached_table seems mandatory:
> >>>>>> - during recovery sequence to have a snapshot of the resource table
> >>>>>> resources used,
> >>>>>> - on stop to allow for the deinitialization of resources after the
> >>>>>> the remote processor has been shutdown.
> >>>>>> However if the TEE interface is being used, we first need to unmap the
> >>>>>> table_ptr before setting it to rproc->cached_table.
> >>>>>> The update of rproc->table_ptr to rproc->cached_table is performed in
> >>>>>> tee_remoteproc.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++-------
> >>>>>> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >>>>>> index 42bca01f3bde..3a642151c983 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >>>>>> @@ -1267,6 +1267,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(rproc_resource_cleanup);
> >>>>>> static int rproc_set_rsc_table_on_start(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> >>>>>> {
> >>>>>> struct resource_table *loaded_table;
> >>>>>> + struct device *dev = &rproc->dev;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> /*
> >>>>>> * The starting device has been given the rproc->cached_table as the
> >>>>>> @@ -1276,12 +1277,21 @@ static int rproc_set_rsc_table_on_start(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmwa
> >>>>>> * this information to device memory. We also update the table_ptr so
> >>>>>> * that any subsequent changes will be applied to the loaded version.
> >>>>>> */
> >>>>>> - loaded_table = rproc_find_loaded_rsc_table(rproc, fw);
> >>>>>> - if (loaded_table) {
> >>>>>> - memcpy(loaded_table, rproc->cached_table, rproc->table_sz);
> >>>>>> - rproc->table_ptr = loaded_table;
> >>>>>> + if (rproc->tee_interface) {
> >>>>>> + loaded_table = rproc_get_loaded_rsc_table(rproc, &rproc->table_sz);
> >>>>>> + if (IS_ERR(loaded_table)) {
> >>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "can't get resource table\n");
> >>>>>> + return PTR_ERR(loaded_table);
> >>>>>> + }
> >>>>>> + } else {
> >>>>>> + loaded_table = rproc_find_loaded_rsc_table(rproc, fw);
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> + if (loaded_table && rproc->cached_table)
> >>>>>> + memcpy(loaded_table, rproc->cached_table, rproc->table_sz);
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why is this not part of the else {} above as it was the case before this patch?
> >>>>> And why was an extra check for ->cached_table added?
> >>>>
> >>>> Here we have to cover 2 use cases if rproc->tee_interface is set.
> >>>> 1) The remote processor is in stop state
> >>>> - loaded_table points to the resource table in the remote memory and
> >>>> - rproc->cached_table is null
> >>>> => no memcopy
> >>>> 2) crash recovery
> >>>> - loaded_table points to the resource table in the remote memory
> >>>> - rproc-cached_table point to a copy of the resource table
> >>>
> >>> A cached_table exists because it was created in rproc_reset_rsc_table_on_stop().
> >>> But as the comment says [1], that part of the code was meant to be used for the
> >>> attach()/detach() use case. Mixing both will become extremely confusing and
> >>> impossible to maintain.
> >>
> >> i am not sure to understand your point here... the cached_table table was
> >> already existing for the "normal" case[2]. Seems to me that the cache table is
> >> needed on stop in all scenarios.
> >>
> >> [2]
> >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v4.20.17/source/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c#L1402
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I think the TEE scenario should be as similar as the "normal" one where TEE is
> >>> not involved. To that end, I suggest to create a cached_table in
> >>> tee_rproc_parse_fw(), exactly the same way it is done in
> >>> rproc_elf_load_rsc_table(). That way the code path in
> >>> rproc_set_rsc_table_on_start() become very similar and we have a cached_table to
> >>> work with when the remote processor is recovered. In fact we may not need
> >>> rproc_set_rsc_table_on_start() at all but that needs to be asserted.
> >>
> >> This is was I proposed in my V4 [3]. Could you please confirm that this aligns
> >> with what you have in mind?
> >
> > After spending more time on this I have the following 3 observations:
> >
> > 1) We need a ->cached_table, otherwise the crash recovery path gets really
> > messy.
> >
> > 2) It _might_ be a good idea to rename tee_rproc_get_loaded_rsc_table() to
> > tee_rproc_find_loaded_rsc_table() to be aligned with the scenario where the
> > firmware is loaded by the remoteproc core. I think you had
> > tee_rproc_find_loaded_rsc_table() in the first place and I asked you to change
> > it. If so, apologies - reviewing patches isn't an exact science.
> >
> > 3) The same way ->cached_table is created in rproc_elf_load_rsc_table(), which
> > is essentially ops::parse_fw(), we should create one in tee_rproc_parse_fw()
> > with a kmemdup(). Exactly the same as in rproc_elf_load_rsc_table(). In
> > tee_rproc_parse_fw(), @rsc_table should be iounmap'ed right away so that we
> > don't need to keep a local variable to free it later. In rproc_start() the call
> > to rproc_find_loaded_rsc_table() will get another mapped handle to the resource
> > table in memory. It might be a little unefficient but it sure beats doing a lot
> > of modifications in the core.
>
> Remapping the resource table in rproc_find_loaded_rsc_table will require that we
> unmap it on rproc_stop before updating rproc->table_ptr to rproc->cached_table.
>

Exactly.

> On the other hand, I wonder if declaring the memory region in the stm32-rproc DT
> node would address this second mapping and avoid a map in
> rproc_find_loaded_rsc_table().
>

That would be even better.

> I will do the V6 integrating your suggestions and having a deeper look on the
> resource table map/unmap.
>
> >
> > As I said above this isn't an exact science and we may need to changes more
> > things but at least it should take us a little further.
>
> That seems to me reasonable and part of the normal upstream process :)
>
>
> Thanks,
> Arnaud
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mathieu
> >
> >> In such a case, should I keep the updates below in
> >> rproc_reset_rsc_table_on_stop(), or should I revert to using rproc->rsc_table to
> >> store the pointer to the resource table in tee_remoteproc for the associated
> >> memory map/unmap?"
> >>
> >> [3]
> >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-remoteproc/patch/20240308144708.62362-2-arnaud.pouliquen@xxxxxxxxxxx/
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Arnaud
> >>
> >>>
> >>> [1]. https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.10-rc1/source/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c#L1565
> >>>
> >>>> => need to perform the memcpy to reapply settings in the resource table
> >>>>
> >>>> I can duplicate the memcpy in if{} and else{} but this will be similar code
> >>>> as needed in both case.
> >>>> Adding rproc->cached_table test if proc->tee_interface=NULL seems also
> >>>> reasonable as a memcpy from 0 should not be performed.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This should be a simple change, i.e introduce an if {} else {} block to take
> >>>>> care of the two scenarios. Plus the comment is misplaced now.
> >>>>
> >>>> What about split it in 2 patches?
> >>>> - one adding the test on rproc->cached_table for the memcpy
> >>>> - one adding the if {} else {}?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Arnaud
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> More comments tomorrow.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Mathieu
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> + rproc->table_ptr = loaded_table;
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> return 0;
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> @@ -1318,11 +1328,16 @@ static int rproc_reset_rsc_table_on_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
> >>>>>> kfree(rproc->clean_table);
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> out:
> >>>>>> - /*
> >>>>>> - * Use a copy of the resource table for the remainder of the
> >>>>>> - * shutdown process.
> >>>>>> + /* If the remoteproc_tee interface is used, then we have first to unmap the resource table
> >>>>>> + * before updating the proc->table_ptr reference.
> >>>>>> */
> >>>>>> - rproc->table_ptr = rproc->cached_table;
> >>>>>> + if (!rproc->tee_interface) {
> >>>>>> + /*
> >>>>>> + * Use a copy of the resource table for the remainder of the
> >>>>>> + * shutdown process.
> >>>>>> + */
> >>>>>> + rproc->table_ptr = rproc->cached_table;
> >>>>>> + }
> >>>>>> return 0;
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> 2.25.1
> >>>>>>

Next message: Alexey Dobriyan: "Re: [PATCH] selftests: proc: remove unreached code and fix build warning"
Previous message: Yazen Ghannam: "Re: [PATCH 3/9] x86/mce: Increment MCP count only for timer calls"
In reply to: Arnaud POULIQUEN: "Re: [PATCH v5 5/7] remoteproc: core: support of the tee interface"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]