From: Eddie James <eajames@linux.ibm.com>
To: Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au>
Cc: linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.com>,
OpenBMC Maillist <openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
linux-fsi@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] fsi: occ: Force sequence numbering per OCC
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 08:27:48 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b482a658da7d6488e8b84c20db2efbe098052814.camel@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACPK8XcBHGsFu0VoNPutC8HYbLcf0WV-KWNixCdGXxWsf1PDVg@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, 2021-07-21 at 02:37 +0000, Joel Stanley wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 15:19, Eddie James <eajames@linux.ibm.com>
> wrote:
> > Set and increment the sequence number during the submit operation.
> > This prevents sequence number conflicts between different users of
> > the interface. A sequence number conflict may result in a user
> > getting an OCC response meant for a different command. Since the
> > sequence number is now modified, the checksum must be calculated
> > and
> > set before submitting the command.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eddie James <eajames@linux.ibm.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au>
>
> > @@ -479,11 +483,26 @@ int fsi_occ_submit(struct device *dev, const
> > void *request, size_t req_len,
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> >
> > + /* Checksum the request, ignoring first byte (sequence
> > number). */
> > + for (i = 1; i < req_len - 2; ++i)
> > + checksum += byte_request[i];
> > +
>
> This could go below, after you've got the sequence number, so the
> checksumming all happens in the same spot?
It definitely could, I had the idea to do the checksumming outside the
mutex in case it took a long time? Probably not worth it though.
>
> The driver has become a bit of a maze, I can't tell how you're
> deciding what goes in fsi_occ_submit vs occ_write vs occ_putsram. If
> oyu have some ideas on how to simplify it then I would welcome those
> changes.
Well, it doesn't really matter in fsi_occ_submit vs occ_putsram, as the
latter is only called in the former. occ_write wouldn't be used by the
hwmon interface, which is why we're moving some of that to
fsi_occ_submit, to have more in common. Agree it could probably be
organized better but I don't immediately have a good idea how to do
that.
Thanks for the review!
Eddie
>
>
>
> > mutex_lock(&occ->occ_lock);
> >
> > - /* Extract the seq_no from the command (first byte) */
> > - seq_no = *(const u8 *)request;
> > - rc = occ_putsram(occ, request, req_len);
> > + /*
> > + * Get a sequence number and update the counter. Avoid a
> > sequence
> > + * number of 0 which would pass the response check below
> > even if the
> > + * OCC response is uninitialized. Any sequence number the
> > user is
> > + * trying to send is overwritten since this function is the
> > only common
> > + * interface to the OCC and therefore the only place we can
> > guarantee
> > + * unique sequence numbers.
> > + */
> > + seq_no = occ->sequence_number++;
> > + if (!occ->sequence_number)
> > + occ->sequence_number = 1;
> > + checksum += seq_no;
> > +
> > + rc = occ_putsram(occ, request, req_len, seq_no, checksum);
> > if (rc)
> > goto done;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-21 13:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-16 15:18 [PATCH 0/3] OCC: fsi and hwmon: Set sequence number in submit interface Eddie James
2021-07-16 15:18 ` [PATCH 1/3] fsi: occ: Force sequence numbering per OCC Eddie James
2021-07-21 2:37 ` Joel Stanley
2021-07-21 13:27 ` Eddie James [this message]
2021-07-16 15:18 ` [PATCH 2/3] hwmon: (occ) Remove sequence numbering and checksum calculation Eddie James
2021-07-17 14:04 ` Guenter Roeck
2021-07-18 20:08 ` kernel test robot
2021-07-18 20:26 ` kernel test robot
2021-07-21 2:43 ` Joel Stanley
2021-07-21 13:41 ` Eddie James
2021-07-16 15:18 ` [PATCH 3/3] fsi: occ: Add dynamic debug to dump command and response Eddie James
2021-07-19 0:26 ` kernel test robot
2021-07-21 23:28 ` Jeremy Kerr
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=b482a658da7d6488e8b84c20db2efbe098052814.camel@linux.ibm.com \
--to=eajames@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=jdelvare@suse.com \
--cc=joel@jms.id.au \
--cc=linux-fsi@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=openbmc@lists.ozlabs.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).