Linux-ARM-Kernel Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@kernel.org>
Cc: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>,
	arm-scmi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] firmware: arm_scmi: Validate Powercap domains before state access
Date: Tue, 19 May 2026 11:04:41 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <agw1ueCQ0WjoBX7-@pluto> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260517-scmi_fixes-v1-4-d86daec4defd@kernel.org>

On Sun, May 17, 2026 at 08:02:43PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> Powercap protocol v2 keeps local enable and last-cap state per
> domain. Some public operations indexed that state before checking that
> the supplied domain id was valid, and cap_enable_get() updated it even
> when cap_get() failed.
> 
> Validate the domain before touching the per-domain state and only
> refresh cached enable state after a successful cap_get().
> 

Hi,

> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@kernel.org>
> ---
>  drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/powercap.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/powercap.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/powercap.c
> index ab9733f4458b..eb5c35cad026 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/powercap.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/powercap.c
> @@ -453,10 +453,14 @@ static int scmi_powercap_cap_set(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph,
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
>  	/* Just log the last set request if acting on a disabled domain */
> -	if (PROTOCOL_REV_MAJOR(ph->version) >= 0x2 &&
> -	    !pi->states[domain_id].enabled) {
> -		pi->states[domain_id].last_pcap = power_cap;
> -		return 0;
> +	if (PROTOCOL_REV_MAJOR(ph->version) >= 0x2) {
> +		if (!scmi_powercap_dom_info_get(ph, domain_id))
> +			return -EINVAL;
> +
> +		if (!pi->states[domain_id].enabled) {
> +			pi->states[domain_id].last_pcap = power_cap;
> +			return 0;
> +		}
>  	}

Yes, definitely better.

>  
>  	return __scmi_powercap_cap_set(ph, pi, domain_id,
> @@ -637,6 +641,9 @@ static int scmi_powercap_cap_enable_set(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph,
>  	if (PROTOCOL_REV_MAJOR(ph->version) < 0x2)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> +	if (!scmi_powercap_dom_info_get(ph, domain_id))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
>  	if (enable == pi->states[domain_id].enabled)
>  		return 0;
>  
> @@ -678,16 +685,20 @@ static int scmi_powercap_cap_enable_get(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph,
>  	if (PROTOCOL_REV_MAJOR(ph->version) < 0x2)
>  		return 0;
>  
> +	if (!scmi_powercap_dom_info_get(ph, domain_id))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +

Ok.

>  	/*
>  	 * Report always real platform state; platform could have ignored
>  	 * a previous disable request. Default true on any error.
>  	 */
>  	ret = scmi_powercap_cap_get(ph, domain_id, &power_cap);
> -	if (!ret)
> +	if (!ret) {
>  		*enable = !!power_cap;
>  
> -	/* Update internal state with current real platform state */
> -	pi->states[domain_id].enabled = *enable;
> +		/* Update internal state with current real platform state */
> +		pi->states[domain_id].enabled = *enable;
> +	}

Mmm, this changes the logic as stated in the above comments...now the
problem is recalling WHY I adopted this logic :<

Thanks,
Cristian


      reply	other threads:[~2026-05-19 10:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-05-17 19:02 [PATCH 0/4] firmware: arm_scmi: Fix protocol parsing and validation Sudeep Holla
2026-05-17 19:02 ` [PATCH 1/4] firmware: arm_scmi: Read sensor config as 32-bit value Sudeep Holla
2026-05-19  8:38   ` Cristian Marussi
2026-05-17 19:02 ` [PATCH 2/4] firmware: arm_scmi: Validate BASE_ERROR_EVENT payload size Sudeep Holla
2026-05-19  9:07   ` Cristian Marussi
2026-05-17 19:02 ` [PATCH 3/4] firmware: arm_scmi: Validate SENSOR_UPDATE " Sudeep Holla
2026-05-19  9:40   ` Cristian Marussi
2026-05-17 19:02 ` [PATCH 4/4] firmware: arm_scmi: Validate Powercap domains before state access Sudeep Holla
2026-05-19 10:04   ` Cristian Marussi [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=agw1ueCQ0WjoBX7-@pluto \
    --to=cristian.marussi@arm.com \
    --cc=arm-scmi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=sudeep.holla@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox