[PATCH v9 10/27] gunyah: rsc_mgr: Add VM lifecycle RPC

[Elliot Berman]

On 2/6/2023 7:41 AM, Alex Elder wrote:
> On 2/2/23 6:46 AM, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>>> +    ret = gh_rm_call(rm, message_id, &req_payload, 
>>> sizeof(req_payload), &resp, &resp_size);
>>> +    if (!ret && resp_size) {
>>
>> Am struggling to understand these type of checks in success case, when 
>> a command is not expecting any response why are we checking for 
>> response here, This sounds like a bug in either RM or hypervisor.
>>
>> Or Is this something that happens due to some firmware behaviour?
>> Could you elobrate on this.
> 
> What I think you're talking about is error checking even when
> it's very clear something "can't happen."  It's a pattern I've
> seen in Qualcomm downstream code, and I believe sometimes it
> is done as "best practice" to avoid warnings from security scans.
> (I might be wrong about this though.)

That's right reasoning.

> 
> I think your underlying point though is that we can just assume
> success means "truly successful," so there's no reason to do any
> additional sanity checks.  We *assume* the hardware is doing the
> correct thing (if it's not, we might as well assume it does
> *nothing* right). >
> So as a very general statement, I think all checks of this type
> should go away (and I think Srini would agree).
> 

I'll remove the checks.