May 2023 - Sound-open-firmware - mailman.alsa-project.org

Re: DMARC (Was: Re: [alsa-devel@alsa-project.org: [PATCH 3/5] ASoC: mediatek: mt8195-afe-pcm: Simplify runtime PM during probe])
by Jaroslav Kysela 10 May '23

10 May '23

On 09. 05. 23 11:37, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 09:12:55AM +0200, Jaroslav Kysela wrote: >> On 08. 05. 23 9:52, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > [alsa-devel rewriting mails in a way that renders them useless with b4] > >>> Jaroslav, could you investigate it? I checked again, and it seems >>> that all "approved" posts from non-subscribers are modified to the >>> sender addresses with alsa-project.org. I guess there must be some >>> option to prevent it. > >> The answer is DMARC. And the "mangling" applies only to senders which >> domains have restricted DMARC settings (reject or quarantine) - >> collabora.com has quarantine. More information: > >> https://lore.kernel.org/alsa-devel/6f003598-4cae-a521-233f-2c19eb439359@per… > >> I am open to any suggestions, but the default mailman settings (do not do >> anything) causes that some (mostly gmail) users do not receive their e-mails >> because the ALSA's mail server has a bad reputation. Many companies are >> using the google mail service for their domains nowadays. > >> The information is not lost - the original e-mail is just encapsulated (as >> an attachmnent) to new with the "allowed from" header for DMARC. But yes, it >> requires some more work (reply to the attachment, update scripts). > > Copying in Konstantin - as I said this is massively disruptive to using > b4 with anything that's been mangled, to the point where the messages > are unusable without substantial manual mangling (and signature > verification fails too). It'd be more usable to just not have the > messages from the list getting to lore and manually bounce patches to > the list. The signature is correct in the encapsulated original e-mail. The b4 should be improved in my opinion. For example, here is the original message: https://lore.kernel.org/alsa-devel/168311377075.26.14919941665402646886@mai… As you see, the header and all signatures are correct in the attachment: From: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno(a)collabora.com> Authentication-Results: alsa1.perex.cz; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=collabora.com header.i=(a)collabora.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=HSzFx8Gb > Is it possible to take steps to improve the reptuation of the ALSA > servers so this isn't needed, or could we migrate the lists elsewhere (I It is not possible to talk with gmail administrators. I tried that several times. The outgoing ALSA server is not on any spam list. > know we set up linux-sound@vger at one point with the idea of > migrating). I guess that the vger servers have similar issues, because servers with DMARC enabled on the ingress side can reject e-mails. It's related to e-mail standards. Jaroslav -- Jaroslav Kysela <perex(a)perex.cz> Linux Sound Maintainer; ALSA Project; Red Hat, Inc.

2 5

Re: DMARC (Was: Re: [alsa-devel@alsa-project.org: [PATCH 3/5] ASoC: mediatek: mt8195-afe-pcm: Simplify runtime PM during probe])
by Geraldo Nascimento 10 May '23

10 May '23

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 11:05:59AM +0900, Mark Brown wrote: > AFAICT the only other option is munging the From without enclosing the > message in a wrapper? That's potentially marginally less harmful but > it's still going to break things badly enough that I'm not sure it's a > worthwhile improvement. The readymade mitigations for DMARC in mailman 3 are "munge_from" and "wrap_message". The fact "wrap_message" messes around with signatures in mutt is definitely not a good sign, and "munge_from" will change the author's email and name from the perspective of git-am. The middle way could be to patch mailman 3 to "munge_from" while adding the correct "From:" as the first thing in the body of the message if it doesn't contain one already. This will make git-am pickup the correct author's details and it should be some simple logic. If Jaroslav is brave enough to maintain this supposed patch to mailman 3 in case it doesn't get picked-up upstream by the FSF folks... I understand the maintainers needs must come first but it will be terrible to get the GMail bouncing behaviour again, I don't want to press the point since Jaroslav already made the speech I think it was needed. Thanks, Geraldo Nascimento

3 3

Re: [alsa-devel@alsa-project.org: [PATCH 3/5] ASoC: mediatek: mt8195-afe-pcm: Simplify runtime PM during probe]
by Takashi Iwai 10 May '23

10 May '23

On Thu, 04 May 2023 03:09:45 +0200, Mark Brown wrote: > > Hi, > > Here's another mail (one of several in this series) that got completely > mangled by the alsa-project.org mailman to the point of unusability. I > didn't see any response to my last mail about this, is there any news on > fixing mailman to not do this? It's extremely disruptive to working > with lore. It seems that alsa-project.org mailman re-sends the post with xxx(a)alsa-project.org address sometimes, indeed. I don't know the condition, but now I noticed it while checking the pending approvals. Those that appeared in the list wrongly were likely the posts I approved without knowing them being superfluously resent ones. Jaroslav, could you check your mailman configuration? thanks, Takashi > Thanks, > Mark > Subject: [PATCH 3/5] ASoC: mediatek: mt8195-afe-pcm: Simplify runtime PM during probe > From: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno via Alsa-devel <alsa-devel(a)alsa-project.org> > Date: Wed, 03 May 2023 13:34:11 +0200 > Message-Id: <168311377075.26.14919941665402646886(a)mailman-core.alsa-project.org> > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Use devm_pm_runtime_enable() and pm_runtime_resume_and_get() to > to simplify the probe function. > > Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno(a)collabora.com> > --- > sound/soc/mediatek/mt8195/mt8195-afe-pcm.c | 22 ++++++++++++---------- > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/sound/soc/mediatek/mt8195/mt8195-afe-pcm.c b/sound/soc/mediatek/mt8195/mt8195-afe-pcm.c > index 9e45efeada55..a54c16e0aa05 100644 > --- a/sound/soc/mediatek/mt8195/mt8195-afe-pcm.c > +++ b/sound/soc/mediatek/mt8195/mt8195-afe-pcm.c > @@ -3179,16 +3179,16 @@ static int mt8195_afe_pcm_dev_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > mt8195_afe_parse_of(afe, pdev->dev.of_node); > > - pm_runtime_enable(dev); > - if (!pm_runtime_enabled(dev)) { > - ret = mt8195_afe_runtime_resume(dev); > - if (ret) > - return ret; > - } > - > /* enable clock for regcache get default value from hw */ > afe_priv->pm_runtime_bypass_reg_ctl = true; > - pm_runtime_get_sync(dev); > + > + ret = devm_pm_runtime_enable(dev); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + ret = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(dev); > + if (ret) > + return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Failed to resume device\n"); > > afe->regmap = devm_regmap_init_mmio(&pdev->dev, afe->base_addr, > &mt8195_afe_regmap_config); > @@ -3238,7 +3238,10 @@ static int mt8195_afe_pcm_dev_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > mt8195_afe_init_registers(afe); > > - pm_runtime_put_sync(dev); > + ret = pm_runtime_put_sync(dev); > + if (ret) > + return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Failed to suspend device\n"); > + > afe_priv->pm_runtime_bypass_reg_ctl = false; > > regcache_cache_only(afe->regmap, true); > @@ -3248,7 +3251,6 @@ static int mt8195_afe_pcm_dev_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > err_pm_put: > pm_runtime_put_sync(dev); > - pm_runtime_disable(dev); > > return ret; > } > -- > 2.40.1

4 6

Re: DMARC (Was: Re: [alsa-devel@alsa-project.org: [PATCH 3/5] ASoC: mediatek: mt8195-afe-pcm: Simplify runtime PM during probe])
by Chen-Yu Tsai 10 May '23

10 May '23

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 10:08 AM Mark Brown <broonie(a)kernel.org> wrote: > > On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 08:03:39PM +0200, Jaroslav Kysela wrote: > > On 09. 05. 23 16:35, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > It's not b4 that's the issue here except in that it causes me to fetch > > > copies of the message that went to the list instead of my inbox which > > > didn't get mangled by the list. git am just does not understand what's > > > b4 can detect, if the e-mail is wrapped and use only the wrapped message. > > The wrapping is the correct semantics per mailman 3 not mangling (see [1]). > > > https://docs.mailman3.org/projects/mailman/en/latest/src/mailman/handlers/d… > > As Konstantin pointed out this isn't entirely practical, especially with > the message ID rewriting breaking things. I suspect any mitigation here > would have to be on the archive side with it trying to unpack and > archive the enclosed message but that doesn't deal with all the issues. > > > > if I try to apply it the top of the commit message looks like: > > > > | commit 8f0e0ee514b189cf7b4e7fa09581e3f1d246fa09 (HEAD -> tmp) > > > | Author: Richard Fitzgerald via Alsa-devel <alsa-devel(a)alsa-project.org> > > > | Date: Thu Apr 20 11:20:43 2023 +0100 > > > > with all the headers dumped in there which is just completely mangled. > > > Note the rewritten author. > > > You should apply the wrapped message not the capsule. > > That's just not how any of the tooling works here, it is *possible* to > unpack things but it's really fighting against the tooling. > > > > mutt also represents this incredibly badly, it just shows the > > > "attachment" as the body of the message with all the headers dumped in > > > I think that you can configure the tool to process this attachment in mutt. > > I don't know off hand what that configuration would be, and in any case > it'd have knock on effects with reordering messages in the mailboxes > plus the overhead of having to open the mailbox to figure out if there's > any mangled messages in there. > > > > The issue I'm seeing here is the rewriting which I'm not aware of any > > > other lists having turned on, even infradead ones which are also mailman > > > based. Either they're just tolerating people having issues with gmail > > > (which seems reasonable TBH) or they're jumping through some additional > > > hoops to avoid issues. > > > I checked infradead and they're using mailman 2. Mailman 2 does not support > > DMARC mitigation. > > AFAICT that "mitigation" is actively harmful... > > > > I believe vger does sometimes manage some backchannel which probably > > > helps it somewhat. > > > Using a non-standard mechanism is not a big win. > > > DMARC is a internet standard - see RFC7489, RFC8616. It means that the > > mailing lists cannot send e-mails with From from other domains which have > > restricted policies set by *their* administrators. So basically, all mail > > I'm perfectly aware of what DMARC is, though I've not run a list server > since it became a thing. As far as I'm aware the backchannel stuff for > vger is more on the policy front (eg, with stuff like rate limit based > mitigations) and not anything to do with relaxing any standards based > security. > > > servers violates this if they keep the From header. Mailman 3 implemented > > several types of mitigations and the message wrap is the best one in my > > eyes. The mangling of the From header or reject e-mails from those senders > > is even worse (see [1]). > > AFAICT the only other option is munging the From without enclosing the > message in a wrapper? That's potentially marginally less harmful but > it's still going to break things badly enough that I'm not sure it's a > worthwhile improvement. > > > When I turn off the mitigation in mailman, my ALSA server will have bad > > reputation for gmail users soon in an unpredictable manner. I also saw that > > ATT incoming mail servers had similar issues. We can expect that the list of > > the ingress SMTP servers not accepting e-mails based on the DMARC policy > > will grow. It's something that we don't have under control. > > It's not quite that broken. > > > If we don't find that it's time to move forward and accept this policy, I > > can turn off the mitigation, but in a cost that gmail (and soon maybe other) > > users will bomb me (they already did last years) that the ALSA mail server > > does not deliver e-mails for them. Are we a community on internet or not? > > > Ideally, we should start upgrade and fix our tools... > > > Let me just know, if you (and Takashi) insist to turn the mitigation off > > after this discussion. I'll do so... > > I'd really like to see it turned off, in conjunction with the > suggestions from Konstantin for passing DMARC. As far as I can tell the > standards are not so broken as to be unusable, though any list is going > to have some issues with gmail due to things like people incorrectly > reporting spam (eg, when they want to unsubscribe or didn't realise what > sort of list they were signing up for), > > For the signatures thing IIRC even before this change to wrap things the > list server was mangling incoming siguatures, they'd typically not > verify if they came through the list - I never checked into it fully > since it was just something I had to be aware of but that's been there > since b4 had signature verification. I *think* ideally existing > signatures should be preserved, or a new one added if there is none. > That may well be more of the issue than anything else. Last time this topic was raised (on infradead), I talked to someone from Gmail. The ask was that originating servers implement DKIM signing, and intermediate servers, i.e. mailing lists, not mangle the signed fields. The latter includes not adding footers, and not re-emitting headers, which may alter the amount of whitespace, based on some of my experiments. ChenYu

1 0

Re: DMARC (Was: Re: [alsa-devel@alsa-project.org: [PATCH 3/5] ASoC: mediatek: mt8195-afe-pcm: Simplify runtime PM during probe])
by Jaroslav Kysela 09 May '23

09 May '23

On 09. 05. 23 16:35, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 11:54:18AM +0200, Jaroslav Kysela wrote: > >> The signature is correct in the encapsulated original e-mail. The b4 should >> be improved in my opinion. > > It's not b4 that's the issue here except in that it causes me to fetch > copies of the message that went to the list instead of my inbox which > didn't get mangled by the list. git am just does not understand what's b4 can detect, if the e-mail is wrapped and use only the wrapped message. The wrapping is the correct semantics per mailman 3 not mangling (see [1]). https://docs.mailman3.org/projects/mailman/en/latest/src/mailman/handlers/d… > happening with attachments. For example for: > > 168198605952.26.13645408104113633580(a)mailman-core.alsa-project.org > > if I try to apply it the top of the commit message looks like: > > | commit 8f0e0ee514b189cf7b4e7fa09581e3f1d246fa09 (HEAD -> tmp) > | Author: Richard Fitzgerald via Alsa-devel <alsa-devel(a)alsa-project.org> > | Date: Thu Apr 20 11:20:43 2023 +0100 > | > | ASoC: cs35l56: Remove duplicate mbox log messages > | > | Received: by alsa1.perex.cz (Postfix, from userid 50401) > | id 7A47CF80155; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 12:20:56 +0200 (CEST) > | X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on alsa1.perex.cz > > with all the headers dumped in there which is just completely mangled. > Note the rewritten author. You should apply the wrapped message not the capsule. > mutt also represents this incredibly badly, it just shows the > "attachment" as the body of the message with all the headers dumped in > like they're just plain text in the body of the mail - I wouldn't have > thought this was an attachment if it hadn't been mentioned in this > thread, none of the atacment UI shows. To reverse the mangling you have > to view attachments then save the root of the message to a folder. AIUI > mutt assumes that whatever the root of the message is is intended to be > the message body and does the best it can to display it as such. I think that you can configure the tool to process this attachment in mutt. > Lore *does* show the body of the message as an attachment. Yes, the original message is in the attachment - no information is lost. >> As you see, the header and all signatures are correct in the attachment: > > None of our tooling or processes understand this, they're working with > the top level message. > >>> Is it possible to take steps to improve the reptuation of the ALSA >>> servers so this isn't needed, or could we migrate the lists elsewhere (I > >> It is not possible to talk with gmail administrators. I tried that several >> times. The outgoing ALSA server is not on any spam list. > > I know there is a lot of discussion going round about which hoops to > jump through to play nice with gmail, I don't know if there's any new > stuff that's come up there recently. > >>> know we set up linux-sound@vger at one point with the idea of >>> migrating). > >> I guess that the vger servers have similar issues, because servers with >> DMARC enabled on the ingress side can reject e-mails. It's related to e-mail >> standards. > > The issue I'm seeing here is the rewriting which I'm not aware of any > other lists having turned on, even infradead ones which are also mailman > based. Either they're just tolerating people having issues with gmail > (which seems reasonable TBH) or they're jumping through some additional > hoops to avoid issues. I checked infradead and they're using mailman 2. Mailman 2 does not support DMARC mitigation. > I believe vger does sometimes manage some backchannel which probably > helps it somewhat. Using a non-standard mechanism is not a big win. DMARC is a internet standard - see RFC7489, RFC8616. It means that the mailing lists cannot send e-mails with From from other domains which have restricted policies set by *their* administrators. So basically, all mail servers violates this if they keep the From header. Mailman 3 implemented several types of mitigations and the message wrap is the best one in my eyes. The mangling of the From header or reject e-mails from those senders is even worse (see [1]). When I turn off the mitigation in mailman, my ALSA server will have bad reputation for gmail users soon in an unpredictable manner. I also saw that ATT incoming mail servers had similar issues. We can expect that the list of the ingress SMTP servers not accepting e-mails based on the DMARC policy will grow. It's something that we don't have under control. If we don't find that it's time to move forward and accept this policy, I can turn off the mitigation, but in a cost that gmail (and soon maybe other) users will bomb me (they already did last years) that the ALSA mail server does not deliver e-mails for them. Are we a community on internet or not? Ideally, we should start upgrade and fix our tools... Let me just know, if you (and Takashi) insist to turn the mitigation off after this discussion. I'll do so... Jaroslav [1] https://docs.mailman3.org/projects/mailman/en/latest/src/mailman/handlers/d… -- Jaroslav Kysela <perex(a)perex.cz> Linux Sound Maintainer; ALSA Project; Red Hat, Inc.

2 1

[PATCH] ASoC: SOF: amd: Fix NULL pointer crash in acp_sof_ipc_msg_data function
by V sujith kumar Reddy 09 May '23

09 May '23

Check substream and runtime variables before assigning. Signed-off-by: V sujith kumar Reddy <Vsujithkumar.Reddy(a)amd.com> --- sound/soc/sof/amd/acp-ipc.c | 7 ++++++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/sound/soc/sof/amd/acp-ipc.c b/sound/soc/sof/amd/acp-ipc.c index 4e0c48a36159..749e856dc601 100644 --- a/sound/soc/sof/amd/acp-ipc.c +++ b/sound/soc/sof/amd/acp-ipc.c @@ -209,7 +209,12 @@ int acp_sof_ipc_msg_data(struct snd_sof_dev *sdev, struct snd_sof_pcm_stream *sp acp_mailbox_read(sdev, offset, p, sz); } else { struct snd_pcm_substream *substream = sps->substream; - struct acp_dsp_stream *stream = substream->runtime->private_data; + struct acp_dsp_stream *stream; + + if (!substream || !substream->runtime) + return -ESTRPIPE; + + stream = substream->runtime->private_data; if (!stream) return -ESTRPIPE; -- 2.25.1

2 1

Re: [alsa-devel@alsa-project.org: [PATCH 3/5] ASoC: mediatek: mt8195-afe-pcm: Simplify runtime PM during probe]
by Geraldo Nascimento 08 May '23

08 May '23

On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 08:33:59AM +0900, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 11:17:19PM -0300, Geraldo Nascimento wrote: > > On Sat, May 06, 2023 at 09:13:06AM +0900, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > Not just the headers in the message, the author information for the mail > > > also got rewritten. Try applying the patches with git am... > > > Mark, I think Jaroslav can change the behaviour in the the added Headers in the > > body of the message (the added Headers in the body have e.g. the correct From: > > email information). > > > If the message body *starts* with the "From:", "Subject:" and "Date:" fields > > I think git-am will pickup the correct information from the body instead of from > > the mangled headers. > > > Hopefully... > > No, it absolutely doesn't work properly - I only noticed this was > happening because b4/lore keep picking the copy from alsa-devel which is > mangled to the point of not being usable. Hi Mark, sorry to hear that. The fact mailman is disrupting your workflow as ASoC maintainer is alarming, and I hope you and Jaroslav can work out a solution. But besides my suggestion that the added headers in the body of the message *start* with at least the correct "From:" field, I can't be of much help. Thanks for the hard work, Geraldo Nascimento

1 0

Re: [alsa-devel@alsa-project.org: [PATCH 3/5] ASoC: mediatek: mt8195-afe-pcm: Simplify runtime PM during probe]
by Geraldo Nascimento 06 May '23

06 May '23

On Sat, May 06, 2023 at 09:13:06AM +0900, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 05:38:28PM -0300, Geraldo Nascimento wrote: > > On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 10:09:45AM +0900, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > Here's another mail (one of several in this series) that got completely > > > mangled by the alsa-project.org mailman to the point of unusability. I > > > didn't see any response to my last mail about this, is there any news on > > > fixing mailman to not do this? It's extremely disruptive to working > > > with lore. > > > Are you complaining about the added headers in the message? Because the > > patch itself didn't look mangled from my side. From my understanding, > > Jaroslav had to start mangling mail addresses due to strict DMARC rules > > which make some servers reject the message from alsa-devel. > > Not just the headers in the message, the author information for the mail > also got rewritten. Try applying the patches with git am... Mark, I think Jaroslav can change the behaviour in the the added Headers in the body of the message (the added Headers in the body have e.g. the correct From: email information). If the message body *starts* with the "From:", "Subject:" and "Date:" fields I think git-am will pickup the correct information from the body instead of from the mangled headers. Hopefully... Good luck, Geraldo Nascimento

1 0

Re: [alsa-devel@alsa-project.org: [PATCH 3/5] ASoC: mediatek: mt8195-afe-pcm: Simplify runtime PM during probe]
by Geraldo Nascimento 05 May '23

05 May '23

On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 10:09:45AM +0900, Mark Brown wrote: > Hi, > > Here's another mail (one of several in this series) that got completely > mangled by the alsa-project.org mailman to the point of unusability. I > didn't see any response to my last mail about this, is there any news on > fixing mailman to not do this? It's extremely disruptive to working > with lore. Hi Mark, Are you complaining about the added headers in the message? Because the patch itself didn't look mangled from my side. From my understanding, Jaroslav had to start mangling mail addresses due to strict DMARC rules which make some servers reject the message from alsa-devel. Thanks, Geraldo Nascimento > > Thanks, > Mark

1 0

Bad magic error when loading SOF firmware
by David Sayada 04 May '23

04 May '23

Hello SOF team, We are trying to evaluate the SOF project on our 8MPLUSSLPD4-EVK based product, and we are getting some issues when trying to run one of the "yocto compiled" SOF Firmware. Below is the procedure we are trying to perform: *echo /lib/firmware/imx/sof/sof-imx8m.ri > /sys/class/remoteproc/remoteproc0/firmware* *echo start > /sys/class/remoteproc/remoteproc0/state* We are getting, at the end, a "Image is corrupted (bad magic)" -22 return code. We have also created a VM (based on SOF 2.4.1) where we can compile (and sign, with default keys) the different toolchains and firmwares. Will that help in having a firmware run correctly? Maybe, we are doing incorrect things, if this is the case, please advise. Best regards, David Sayada.

2 5