Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: Relax BASE protocol sanity checks on protocol list

From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>
Cc: Michael Riesch <michael.riesch@wolfvision.net>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>, Liang Chen <cl@rock-chips.com>,
	Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen@rock-chips.com>,
	Peter Geis <pgwipeout@gmail.com>,
	Nicolas Frattaroli <frattaroli.nicolas@gmail.com>,
	Etienne Carriere <etienne.carriere@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: Relax BASE protocol sanity checks on protocol list
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2022 15:43:05 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220606144305.agzzyf7c4kp2nwlw@bogus> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yp4Br5d0jMnlF5yy@e120937-lin>

On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 02:31:48PM +0100, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 02:59:10PM +0200, Michael Riesch wrote:
> > Hi Cristian,
> >
> Hi Michael,
>
> > On 5/23/22 19:15, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> > > Even though malformed replies from firmware must be treated carefully to
> > > avoid memory corruption Kernel side, some out-of-spec SCMI replies can
> > > be tolerated to avoid breaking existing deployed system, as long as they
> > > won't cause memory issues.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Nicolas Frattaroli <frattaroli.nicolas@gmail.com>
> > > Cc: Etienne Carriere <etienne.carriere@linaro.org>
> > > Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>
> >
> > Thanks a lot, without this fix the Mali G52 GPU won't probe on my RK3568
> > EVB1 in vanilla v5.19-rc1.
> >
>
> Yes, the break was reported on -next and today it appeared in 5.19-rc1.
> A proper FW fix is also up for review by Etienne but in the meantime
> this tries to limit damages relaxing a bit the checks.
>
> > I guess this patch should have a Fixes: tag, right?
> >
>
> It has not a Fixes tag because the issue was introduced in 5.19-rc1 and the
> fix will go in with the next round of v5.19 fixes by Sudeep (AFAIU) so it
> will be solved within the v5.19 cycle and I thought the Fixes tag was
> not needed in this case (I could be wrong...)

Correct, if for some reason, we can't push this before v5.19, then fixes
tag needs to added. I will add that then, but for now let us target getting
it in before v5.19

--
Regards,
Sudeep

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel