Linaro-mm-sig

linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org

15 participants
3025 discussions

Re: [PATCH v3 01/18] ASoC: dt-bindings: mediatek,mt8365-afe: Add audio afe document

by Krzysztof Kozlowski

On 10/04/2024 11:29, Alexandre Mergnat wrote: > > > On 09/04/2024 17:46, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> + soc { >>> + #address-cells = <2>; >>> + #size-cells = <2>; >>> + >>> + afe@11220000 { >> Did you implement the comment or decided to keep afe? >> > > Though it was clear according to [1]: > " > Audio Front End, this is the same name used for other MTK SoC, to be > consistent. > > Cook a new patch serie to change "afe" by "audio-controller" for all MTK > SoC would be great. > " > > I want to keep it and fix it later with ALL other MTK SoC. > You didn't answer after that, I though it was ok for you... Then no, I don't agree. If you add code, which you already plan to fix, it means the code is not correct somehow. Then just add correct code in the beginning. Best regards, Krzysztof

1 year, 5 months

Re: [PATCH] dmabuf: fix dmabuf file poll uaf issue

by Christian König

Am 12.04.24 um 08:19 schrieb zhiguojiang: > [SNIP] > -> Here task 2220 do epoll again where internally it will get/put then > start to free twice and lead to final crash. > > Here is the basic flow: > > 1. Thread A install the dma_buf_fd via dma_buf_export, the fd refcount > is 1 > > 2. Thread A add the fd to epoll list via epoll_ctl(EPOLL_CTL_ADD) > > 3. After use the dma buf, Thread A close the fd, then here fd refcount > is 0, > and it will run __fput finally to release the file Stop, that isn't correct. The fs layer which calls dma_buf_poll() should make sure that the file can't go away until the function returns. Then inside dma_buf_poll() we add another reference to the file while installing the callback: /* Paired with fput in dma_buf_poll_cb */ get_file(dmabuf->file); This reference is only dropped after the callback is completed in dma_buf_poll_cb(): /* Paired with get_file in dma_buf_poll */ fput(dmabuf->file); So your explanation for the issue just seems to be incorrect. > > 4. Here Thread A not do epoll_ctl(EPOLL_CTL_DEL) manunally, so it > still resides in one epoll_list. > Although __fput will call eventpoll_release to remove the file from > binded epoll list, > but it has small time window where Thread B jumps in. Well if that is really the case then that would then be a bug in epoll_ctl(). > > 5. During the small window, Thread B do the poll action for > dma_buf_fd, where it will fget/fput for the file, > this means the fd refcount will be 0 -> 1 -> 0, and it will call > __fput again. > This will lead to __fput twice for the same file. > > 6. So the potenial fix is use get_file_rcu which to check if file > refcount already zero which means under free. > If so, we just return and no need to do the dma_buf_poll. Well to say it bluntly as far as I can see this suggestion is completely nonsense. When the reference to the file goes away while dma_buf_poll() is executed then that's a massive bug in the caller of that function. Regards, Christian. > > Here is the race condition: > > Thread A Thread B > dma_buf_export > fd_refcount is 1 > epoll_ctl(EPOLL_ADD) > add dma_buf_fd to epoll list > close(dma_buf_fd) > fd_refcount is 0 > __fput > dma_buf_poll > fget > fput > fd_refcount is zero again > > Thanks >

1 year, 5 months

Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: add DMA_BUF_IOCTL_SYNC_PARTIAL support

by T.J. Mercier

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 1:21 AM Rong Qianfeng <11065417(a)vivo.com> wrote: > > > 在 2024/4/10 0:37, T.J. Mercier 写道: > > [You don't often get email from tjmercier(a)google.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > > > > On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 12:34 AM Rong Qianfeng <11065417(a)vivo.com> wrote: > >> > >> 在 2024/4/8 15:58, Christian König 写道: > >>> Am 07.04.24 um 09:50 schrieb Rong Qianfeng: > >>>> [SNIP] > >>>>> Am 13.11.21 um 07:22 schrieb Jianqun Xu: > >>>>>> Add DMA_BUF_IOCTL_SYNC_PARTIAL support for user to sync dma-buf with > >>>>>> offset and len. > >>>>> You have not given an use case for this so it is a bit hard to > >>>>> review. And from the existing use cases I don't see why this should > >>>>> be necessary. > >>>>> > >>>>> Even worse from the existing backend implementation I don't even see > >>>>> how drivers should be able to fulfill this semantics. > >>>>> > >>>>> Please explain further, > >>>>> Christian. > >>>> Here is a practical case: > >>>> The user space can allocate a large chunk of dma-buf for > >>>> self-management, used as a shared memory pool. > >>>> Small dma-buf can be allocated from this shared memory pool and > >>>> released back to it after use, thus improving the speed of dma-buf > >>>> allocation and release. > >>>> Additionally, custom functionalities such as memory statistics and > >>>> boundary checking can be implemented in the user space. > >>>> Of course, the above-mentioned functionalities require the > >>>> implementation of a partial cache sync interface. > >>> Well that is obvious, but where is the code doing that? > >>> > >>> You can't send out code without an actual user of it. That will > >>> obviously be rejected. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Christian. > >> In fact, we have already used the user-level dma-buf memory pool in the > >> camera shooting scenario on the phone. > >> > >> From the test results, The execution time of the photo shooting > >> algorithm has been reduced from 3.8s to 3s. > >> > > For phones, the (out of tree) Android version of the system heap has a > > page pool connected to a shrinker. That allows you to skip page > > allocation without fully pinning the memory like you get when > > allocating a dma-buf that's way larger than necessary. If it's for a > > camera maybe you need physically contiguous memory, but it's also > > possible to set that up. > > > > https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/common/+/refs/heads/android14-6.1/d… > > > Thank you for the reminder. > > The page pool of the system heap can meet the needs of most scenarios, > but the camera shooting scenario is quite special. > > Why the camera shooting scenario needs to have a dma-buf memory pool in > the user-level？ > > (1) The memory demand is extremely high and time requirements are > stringent. Preallocating for this makes sense to me, whether it is individual buffers or one large one. > (2) The memory in the page pool(system heap) is easily reclaimed or used > by other apps. Yeah, by design I guess. I have seen an implementation where the page pool is proactively refilled after it has been empty for some time which would help in scenarios where the pool is often reclaimed and low/empty. You could add that in a vendor heap. > (3) High concurrent allocation and release (with deferred-free) lead to > high memory usage peaks. Hopefully this is not every frame? I saw enough complaints about the deferred free of pool pages that it hasn't been carried forward since Android 13, so this should be less of a problem on recent kernels. > Additionally, after the camera exits, the shared memory pool can be > released, with minimal impact. Why do you care about the difference here? In one case it's when the buffer refcount goes to 0 and memory is freed immediately, and in the other it's the next time reclaim runs the shrinker. I don't want to add UAPI for DMA_BUF_IOCTL_SYNC_PARTIAL to Android without it being in the upstream kernel. I don't think we can get that without an in-kernel user of dma_buf_begin_cpu_access_partial first, even though your use case wouldn't rely on that in-kernel usage. :\ So if you want to add this to phones for your camera app, then I think your best option is to add a vendor driver which implements this IOCTL and calls the dma_buf_begin_cpu_access_partial functions which are already exported. Best, T.J.

1 year, 5 months

Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: add DMA_BUF_IOCTL_SYNC_PARTIAL support

by T.J. Mercier

On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 12:34 AM Rong Qianfeng <11065417(a)vivo.com> wrote: > > > 在 2024/4/8 15:58, Christian König 写道: > > Am 07.04.24 um 09:50 schrieb Rong Qianfeng: > >> [SNIP] > >>> Am 13.11.21 um 07:22 schrieb Jianqun Xu: > >>>> Add DMA_BUF_IOCTL_SYNC_PARTIAL support for user to sync dma-buf with > >>>> offset and len. > >>> > >>> You have not given an use case for this so it is a bit hard to > >>> review. And from the existing use cases I don't see why this should > >>> be necessary. > >>> > >>> Even worse from the existing backend implementation I don't even see > >>> how drivers should be able to fulfill this semantics. > >>> > >>> Please explain further, > >>> Christian. > >> Here is a practical case: > >> The user space can allocate a large chunk of dma-buf for > >> self-management, used as a shared memory pool. > >> Small dma-buf can be allocated from this shared memory pool and > >> released back to it after use, thus improving the speed of dma-buf > >> allocation and release. > >> Additionally, custom functionalities such as memory statistics and > >> boundary checking can be implemented in the user space. > >> Of course, the above-mentioned functionalities require the > >> implementation of a partial cache sync interface. > > > > Well that is obvious, but where is the code doing that? > > > > You can't send out code without an actual user of it. That will > > obviously be rejected. > > > > Regards, > > Christian. > > In fact, we have already used the user-level dma-buf memory pool in the > camera shooting scenario on the phone. > > From the test results, The execution time of the photo shooting > algorithm has been reduced from 3.8s to 3s. > For phones, the (out of tree) Android version of the system heap has a page pool connected to a shrinker. That allows you to skip page allocation without fully pinning the memory like you get when allocating a dma-buf that's way larger than necessary. If it's for a camera maybe you need physically contiguous memory, but it's also possible to set that up. https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/common/+/refs/heads/android14-6.1/d… > To be honest, I didn't understand your concern "...how drivers should be > able to fulfill this semantics." Can you please help explain it in more > detail? > > Thanks, > > Rong Qianfeng. > > > > >> > >> Thanks > >> Rong Qianfeng. > > >

1 year, 5 months

Re: [PATCH net-next v8 3/3] net: ethernet: ti: am65-cpsw: Add minimal XDP support

by Jakub Kicinski

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 16:02:00 +0200 Julien Panis wrote: > > You shouldn't build the skb upfront any more. Give the page to the HW, > > once HW sends you a completion - build the skbs. If build fails > > (allocation failure) just give the page back to HW. If it succeeds, > > however, you'll get a skb which is far more likely to be cache hot. > > Not sure I get this point. > > "Give the page to the HW" = Do you mean that I should dma_map_single() > a full page (|PAGE_SIZE|) in am65_cpsw_nuss_rx_push() ? Yes, I think so. I think that's what you effectively do now anyway, you just limit the len and wrap it in an skb. But am65_cpsw_nuss_rx_push() will effectively get that page back from skb->data and map it.

1 year, 5 months

Re: [PATCH net-next v8 2/3] net: ethernet: ti: Add desc_infos member to struct k3_cppi_desc_pool

by Jakub Kicinski

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 10:36:16 +0200 Julien Panis wrote: > Also, about mem alloc failures, shouldn't we free 'pool' on kstrdup_const() > error at the beginning of k3_cppi_desc_pool_create_name() ? > I mean, it's not visible in my patch but I now wonder if this was done > properly even before I modify the file. Yes, it uses managed memory (devm_*) but prueth (I didn't check other callers) calls it from .ndo_open. So while not technically a full leak we can accumulate infinite memory by repeatedly failing here :S

1 year, 5 months

Re: [PATCH net-next v8 3/3] net: ethernet: ti: am65-cpsw: Add minimal XDP support

by Jakub Kicinski

On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 11:38:04 +0200 Julien Panis wrote: > +static struct sk_buff *am65_cpsw_alloc_skb(struct am65_cpsw_rx_chn *rx_chn, > + struct net_device *ndev, > + unsigned int len, > + int desc_idx, > + bool allow_direct) > +{ > + struct sk_buff *skb; > + struct page *page; > + > + page = page_pool_dev_alloc_pages(rx_chn->page_pool); > + if (unlikely(!page)) > + return NULL; > + > + len += AM65_CPSW_HEADROOM; > + > + skb = build_skb(page_address(page), len); You shouldn't build the skb upfront any more. Give the page to the HW, once HW sends you a completion - build the skbs. If build fails (allocation failure) just give the page back to HW. If it succeeds, however, you'll get a skb which is far more likely to be cache hot. > + if (unlikely(!skb)) { > + page_pool_put_full_page(rx_chn->page_pool, page, allow_direct); > + rx_chn->pages[desc_idx] = NULL; > + return NULL; > + }

1 year, 5 months

Re: [PATCH net-next v8 2/3] net: ethernet: ti: Add desc_infos member to struct k3_cppi_desc_pool

by Jakub Kicinski

On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 11:38:03 +0200 Julien Panis wrote: > goto gen_pool_create_fail; > } > > + pool->desc_infos = kcalloc(pool->num_desc, > + sizeof(*pool->desc_infos), GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!pool->desc_infos) { > + ret = -ENOMEM; > + dev_err(pool->dev, > + "pool descriptor infos alloc failed %d\n", ret); Please don't add errors on mem alloc failures. They just bloat the kernel, there will be a rather large OOM splat in the logs if GFP_KERNEL allocation fails. > + kfree_const(pool_name); > + goto gen_pool_desc_infos_alloc_fail; > + } > + > pool->gen_pool->name = pool_name; If you add the new allocation after this line, I think you wouldn't have to free pool_name under the if () explicitly. -- pw-bot: cr

1 year, 5 months

Re: [PATCH v3 18/18] arm64: dts: mediatek: add audio support for mt8365-evk

by Krzysztof Kozlowski

On 09/04/2024 15:42, Alexandre Mergnat wrote: > Add the sound node which is linked to the MT8365 SoC AFE and > the MT6357 audio codec. > > Update the file header. > > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Mergnat <amergnat(a)baylibre.com> > --- > arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8365-evk.dts | 98 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 94 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8365-evk.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8365-evk.dts > index 50cbaefa1a99..eb0c5f076dd4 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8365-evk.dts > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8365-evk.dts > @@ -1,9 +1,9 @@ > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > /* > - * Copyright (c) 2021-2022 BayLibre, SAS. > - * Authors: > - * Fabien Parent <fparent(a)baylibre.com> > - * Bernhard Rosenkränzer <bero(a)baylibre.com> > + * Copyright (c) 2024 BayLibre, SAS. What is happening with your copyrights? Why do you change existing ones? > + * Authors: Fabien Parent <fparent(a)baylibre.com> > + * Bernhard Rosenkränzer <bero(a)baylibre.com> > + * Alexandre Mergnat <amergnat(a)baylibre.com> > */ > > /dts-v1/; > @@ -86,6 +86,29 @@ optee_reserved: optee@43200000 { > reg = <0 0x43200000 0 0x00c00000>; > }; > }; > + > + sound: sound { > + compatible = "mediatek,mt8365-mt6357"; > + pinctrl-names = "default", > + "dmic", > + "miso_off", > + "miso_on", > + "mosi_off", > + "mosi_on"; > + pinctrl-0 = <&aud_default_pins>; > + pinctrl-1 = <&aud_dmic_pins>; > + pinctrl-2 = <&aud_miso_off_pins>; > + pinctrl-3 = <&aud_miso_on_pins>; > + pinctrl-4 = <&aud_mosi_off_pins>; > + pinctrl-5 = <&aud_mosi_on_pins>; > + mediatek,platform = <&afe>; > + status = "okay"; Where did you disable the node? > + }; > +}; > + > +&afe { > + mediatek,dmic-mode = <1>; > + status = "okay"; > }; > > &cpu0 { > @@ -174,6 +197,12 @@ &mmc1 { > status = "okay"; > }; > > +&mt6357_codec { > + mediatek,micbias0-microvolt = <1900000>; > + mediatek,micbias1-microvolt = <1700000>; > + mediatek,vaud28-supply = <&mt6357_vaud28_reg>; > +}; > + > &mt6357_pmic { > interrupts-extended = <&pio 145 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; > interrupt-controller; > @@ -181,6 +210,67 @@ &mt6357_pmic { > }; > > &pio { > + aud_default_pins: audiodefault-pins { > + pins { > + pinmux = <MT8365_PIN_72_CMDAT4__FUNC_I2S3_BCK>, > + <MT8365_PIN_73_CMDAT5__FUNC_I2S3_LRCK>, > + <MT8365_PIN_74_CMDAT6__FUNC_I2S3_MCK>, > + <MT8365_PIN_75_CMDAT7__FUNC_I2S3_DO>; You have broken indentation everywhere. Best regards, Krzysztof

1 year, 5 months

Re: [PATCH v3 16/18] arm64: dts: mediatek: add mt6357 audio codec support

by Krzysztof Kozlowski

On 09/04/2024 15:42, Alexandre Mergnat wrote: > Add audio codec support of MT6357 PMIC. > Update the file header. Why? > > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Mergnat <amergnat(a)baylibre.com> > --- > arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt6357.dtsi | 5 ++++- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt6357.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt6357.dtsi > index 3330a03c2f74..ade410851524 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt6357.dtsi > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt6357.dtsi > @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ > // SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR MIT) > /* > * Copyright (c) 2020 MediaTek Inc. > - * Copyright (c) 2023 BayLibre Inc. > + * Copyright (c) 2024 BayLibre Inc. That's not a reasonable change. The file was published on 2023, wasn't it? If this is not correct, please explain why/how and make it separate patch. > */ > > #include <dt-bindings/input/input.h> > @@ -10,6 +10,9 @@ &pwrap { > mt6357_pmic: pmic { > compatible = "mediatek,mt6357"; > > + mt6357_codec: codec { > + }; There is no single point of having empty nodes. NAK. Best regards, Krzysztof

1 year, 5 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

Linaro-mm-sig