Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Mon, 6 Jun 2022 14:31:48 +0100
From:   Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>
To:     Michael Riesch <michael.riesch@wolfvision.net>
Cc:     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>,
        Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen@rock-chips.com>,
        Peter Geis <pgwipeout@gmail.com>,
        Nicolas Frattaroli <frattaroli.nicolas@gmail.com>,
        Etienne Carriere <etienne.carriere@linaro.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: Relax BASE protocol sanity checks on
 protocol list
Message-ID: <Yp4Br5d0jMnlF5yy@e120937-lin>
References: <20220523171559.472112-1-cristian.marussi@arm.com>
 <45bf11a8-47eb-e088-ba99-30c8788c7143@wolfvision.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <45bf11a8-47eb-e088-ba99-30c8788c7143@wolfvision.net>
Precedence: bulk

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...)

> Would be great to have this in v5.19. AFAIC:
> 
> Acked-by: Michael Riesch <michael.riesch@wolfvision.net>

Thanks for testing it.
Cristian