From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33C0DC433F5 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 18:49:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=izgv0+608nfOdAG+A84wR6iTod4sJh31HFZKoIewFiw=; b=NrqChDZKcd7QuN EAqijGDQFSMw/GGkpV8fHOt8htKDKKDjvKIPqWXMcGs0IdWSayJagBHZP020/f8G53EnLfpZfTImE l8aOIbMPHThp42krhTgwVPvuX3qp9woY7cS9fM71wJvSez539Fzb/0XgFZgNT+rc5L6D+Au6ZnyWY za7M/A4hbtoFdVOdzFFaufnvL0d7Mhfj61sSt2C88AsmCSILRhHCZwMGAZVoAykL3PTZY90FYVica MioN38tWTd5xhYbTi+BZYrXwHP9+MtHtC1CxF29U3JDeYGpvAwqK5Wuv4JhuTRraWOoN7MUMQTPDV lvzHcladFKVpu8LilHkw==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1nIEUF-004fWa-Bq; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 18:48:11 +0000 Received: from mail-pf1-x42a.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::42a]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1nIEUA-004fVi-SE for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 18:48:08 +0000 Received: by mail-pf1-x42a.google.com with SMTP id x15so9427264pfr.5 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:48:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=VsLbb6fw09jdueYA3hgQp5c4zAw8XroJudfdKUin7Pk=; b=A8nvS+811owjf+WxW8Y85nR1hJR7SCEE+KgU8+3UxXLVggL/+xneQ3xxsdomZFPAXG OaZZns42B0hs+2AsdSfvl8hZUQmWzBzWaH+qByMuY7ubAhFgdcv1EROA3CJCgEy/N22l qmKSV+hHkJbd7bT6MgvX7/y2JnhJOHkdFr/61DANa7QNv4LT4OZu2oaxNjPV1Lga/EOK x2OpCvmMg468WnKAGYiPbFU1VuRr0K8cuufsAJcAQy0IEiH7azT/CN/3npSBGlK6TsiP rDNUBNMI0KBHn/4JWMEqwhUKIGMF3KH+fTYbZc6Wt/kmUsDuNzJoEeiaBD0Q7Euky40n KPng== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=VsLbb6fw09jdueYA3hgQp5c4zAw8XroJudfdKUin7Pk=; b=vJj1L9oom3j0VZO0V+031kddicjuRh+M0h1GTlFwuPlUxAeUgpucYD26qm5HXSL7Ds pduKM5YJqPIh84d3RlNHmnlHXftisVABpOdmJ0V5NJ8m41YtiF9mqLtzIGXg6LYDNUe2 Ik3NB1fpkygICzeELfz07Bzl8bJw1RKinuuDhYD6qewYEtF8xUXDRoKYkoNoL6uXJBly lSkh7QQonLH8ucKqoEVsEkWuza3pmH1ohvMazuZ39z5ZbPnuswgfQnv3u5ipvsrZMni4 Q4nODWY8c8ceHC0FSxCxB17Byow1bCi/btv/iyz2z68QnJAvrdKGmX7VCrnN9aV60Px5 wMHQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5321pOtZFsYa9P4duTmzIdfxNz5iL4s4wmQF3/a/tuLHml7D9F9F lKc7NhpbMRTY27vzvItHlqbZnQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyAcsZT8dibcimAmFBciTXwwwCwtwpwFfr1/pJSIRwcJLfqtsWO+mS9FQ3RSw4EpD30XVcViw== X-Received: by 2002:a63:6ac3:: with SMTP id f186mr7163744pgc.81.1644518885741; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:48:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from p14s (S0106889e681aac74.cg.shawcable.net. [68.147.0.187]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id oa10sm964695pjb.54.2022.02.10.10.48.04 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:48:04 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 11:48:02 -0700 From: Mathieu Poirier To: Puranjay Mohan Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] remoteproc: Introduce deny_sysfs_ops flag Message-ID: <20220210184802.GB3603040@p14s> References: <20220209090342.13220-1-p-mohan@ti.com> <20220209090342.13220-2-p-mohan@ti.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220209090342.13220-2-p-mohan@ti.com> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20220210_104807_008092_E3801FC7 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 32.31 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: kishon@ti.com, vigneshr@ti.com, puranjay12@gmail.com, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Hi Puranjay, On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 02:33:41PM +0530, Puranjay Mohan wrote: > The remoteproc framework provides sysfs interfaces for changing > the firmware name and for starting/stopping a remote processor > through the sysfs files 'state' and 'firmware'. The 'recovery' > sysfs file can also be used similarly to control the error recovery > state machine of a remoteproc. These interfaces are currently > allowed irrespective of how the remoteprocs were booted (like > remoteproc self auto-boot, remoteproc client-driven boot etc). > These interfaces can adversely affect a remoteproc and its clients > especially when a remoteproc is being controlled by a remoteproc > client driver(s). Also, not all remoteproc drivers may want to > support the sysfs interfaces by default. > > Add support to deny the sysfs state/firmware/recovery change by > introducing a state flag 'deny_sysfs_ops' that the individual > remoteproc drivers can set based on their usage needs. The default > behavior is to allow the sysfs operations as before. > > Implement attribute_group->is_visible() to hide the sysfs > state/firmware/recovery entries when deny_sysfs_ops flag is set. > > Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan > --- > Changes in v3->v4: > Use mode = 0444 in rproc_is_visible() to make the sysfs entries > read-only when the deny_sysfs_ops flag is set. > --- > drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_sysfs.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++- > include/linux/remoteproc.h | 2 ++ > 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_sysfs.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_sysfs.c > index ea8b89f97d7b..da2d0eecfa44 100644 > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_sysfs.c > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_sysfs.c > @@ -230,6 +230,21 @@ static ssize_t name_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, > } > static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(name); > > +static umode_t rproc_is_visible(struct kobject *kobj, struct attribute *attr, > + int n) > +{ > + struct device *dev = kobj_to_dev(kobj); > + struct rproc *rproc = to_rproc(dev); > + umode_t mode = attr->mode; > + > + if (rproc->deny_sysfs_ops && (attr == &dev_attr_recovery.attr || > + attr == &dev_attr_firmware.attr || > + attr == &dev_attr_state.attr)) I was wondering if we should also add coredump to this group to make it an all or nothing option (name is already read only). > + mode = 0444; Much better. > + > + return mode; > +} > + > static struct attribute *rproc_attrs[] = { > &dev_attr_coredump.attr, > &dev_attr_recovery.attr, > @@ -240,7 +255,8 @@ static struct attribute *rproc_attrs[] = { > }; > > static const struct attribute_group rproc_devgroup = { > - .attrs = rproc_attrs > + .attrs = rproc_attrs, > + .is_visible = rproc_is_visible, > }; > > static const struct attribute_group *rproc_devgroups[] = { > diff --git a/include/linux/remoteproc.h b/include/linux/remoteproc.h > index e0600e1e5c17..3849c66ce38f 100644 > --- a/include/linux/remoteproc.h > +++ b/include/linux/remoteproc.h > @@ -523,6 +523,7 @@ struct rproc_dump_segment { > * @table_sz: size of @cached_table > * @has_iommu: flag to indicate if remote processor is behind an MMU > * @auto_boot: flag to indicate if remote processor should be auto-started > + * @deny_sysfs_ops: flag to not permit sysfs operations on state, firmware and recovery > * @dump_segments: list of segments in the firmware > * @nb_vdev: number of vdev currently handled by rproc > * @elf_class: firmware ELF class > @@ -562,6 +563,7 @@ struct rproc { > size_t table_sz; > bool has_iommu; > bool auto_boot; > + bool deny_sysfs_ops; Wouldn't "sysfs_read_only" make more sense? With or without the above and for this set: Reviewed-by: Mathieu Poirier > struct list_head dump_segments; > int nb_vdev; > u8 elf_class; > -- > 2.17.1 > _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel