[PATCH v5 1/2] misc: fastrpc: Define a new initmem size for user PD

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 01:23:56PM GMT, Ekansh Gupta wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/22/2024 1:09 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 11:42:52AM +0530, Ekansh Gupta wrote:
> >>
> >> On 7/22/2024 11:28 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 11:24:36AM +0530, Ekansh Gupta wrote:
> >>>> For user PD initialization, initmem is allocated and sent to DSP for
> >>>> initial memory requirements like shell loading. The size of this memory
> >>>> is decided based on the shell size that is passed by the user space.
> >>>> With the current implementation, a minimum of 2MB is always allocated
> >>>> for initmem even if the size passed by user is less than that. For this
> >>>> a MACRO is being used which is intended for shell size bound check.
> >>>> This minimum size of 2MB is not recommended as the PD will have very
> >>>> less memory for heap and will have to request HLOS again for memory.
> >>>> Define a new macro for initmem minimum length of 3MB.
> >>>>
> >>>> Fixes: d73f71c7c6ee ("misc: fastrpc: Add support for create remote init process")
> >>>> Cc: stable <stable at kernel.org>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ekansh Gupta <quic_ekangupt at quicinc.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  drivers/misc/fastrpc.c | 3 ++-
> >>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/misc/fastrpc.c b/drivers/misc/fastrpc.c
> >>>> index a7a2bcedb37e..a3a5b745936e 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/misc/fastrpc.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/misc/fastrpc.c
> >>>> @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@
> >>>>  #define FASTRPC_DSP_UTILITIES_HANDLE	2
> >>>>  #define FASTRPC_CTXID_MASK (0xFF0)
> >>>>  #define INIT_FILELEN_MAX (2 * 1024 * 1024)
> >>>> +#define FASTRPC_INITLEN_MIN (3 * 1024 * 1024)
> >>> Meta-comment, for a future change, why not tabs to line things up?
> >> Sure, I'll add a comment.
> > I didn't say anything about comments :(
> Oops, sorry.
> >
> >> Should I line up all the MACRO definitions? If yes, should I send it as a separate patch?
> > As I said, yes, for a future change.
> Noted, thanks.
> >>> How was this tested?
> >> This is tested with fastrpc use cases available in hexagon SDK:
> >> https://developer.qualcomm.com/software/hexagon-dsp-sdk/sample-apps
> > Do you have regression tests that attempt to check the boundry
> > conditions and alignment here?
> For most of the test cases, I used the fastrpc lib:
> https://github.com/quic/fastrpc
> 
> This library is taking care of passing proper shell size which is within the boundary for
> all the platform that I've tried.
> I'll try creating and running some regression tests for this change.

Existing userspace implementation provides an example of good behaviour.
Please consider implenting and publishing 'bad' behaviour testcases
which make sure that the driver doesn't break if it gets passed 'bad'
data.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry