treewide: refresh kmalloc_obj() conversionsgrafted

This is another run of the Coccinelle script for converting kmalloc()
family of allocations to kmalloc_obj() via the existing rules in
scripts/coccinelle/api/kmalloc_objs.cocci

This catches both the set of kmalloc() uses added since the first
kmalloc_obj() conversions in v7.0 and adds a large group missed in the
first pass due to Coccinelle not interacting well with the cleanup.h
scoped_...() family of macros[1]. I worked around this with spatch's
"--macro-file" argument to a file with all the scoped_...() macros mapped
to Coccinelle's YACFE_ITERATOR[2] as that was the closest viable control
flow indicator I could find.

Build tested allmodconfig on x86, arm64, arm, loongarch, mips, powerpc,
riscv, and s390 with no new warnings.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202609021314.8A9C0B8@keescook/ [1]
Link: https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/master/standard.h [2]
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <kees+treewide@kernel.org>

1 files changed, 129 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/mailbox.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/mailbox.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..d46c60bd5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/driver-api/mailbox.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,129 @@
+============================
+The Common Mailbox Framework
+============================
+
+:Author: Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org>
+
+This document aims to help developers write client and controller
+drivers for the API. But before we start, let us note that the
+client (especially) and controller drivers are likely going to be
+very platform specific because the remote firmware is likely to be
+proprietary and implement non-standard protocol. So even if two
+platforms employ, say, PL320 controller, the client drivers can't
+be shared across them. Even the PL320 driver might need to accommodate
+some platform specific quirks. So the API is meant mainly to avoid
+similar copies of code written for each platform. Having said that,
+nothing prevents the remote f/w to also be Linux based and use the
+same api there. However none of that helps us locally because we only
+ever deal at client's protocol level.
+
+Some of the choices made during implementation are the result of this
+peculiarity of this "common" framework.
+
+
+
+Controller Driver (See include/linux/mailbox_controller.h)
+==========================================================
+
+
+Allocate mbox_controller and the array of mbox_chan.
+Populate mbox_chan_ops, except flush() and peek_data() all are mandatory.
+The controller driver might know a message has been consumed
+by the remote by getting an IRQ or polling some hardware flag
+or it can never know (the client knows by way of the protocol).
+The method in order of preference is IRQ -> Poll -> None, which
+the controller driver should set via 'txdone_irq' or 'txdone_poll'
+or neither.
+
+
+Client Driver (See include/linux/mailbox_client.h)
+==================================================
+
+
+The client might want to operate in blocking mode (synchronously
+send a message through before returning) or non-blocking/async mode (submit
+a message and a callback function to the API and return immediately).
+
+::
+
+	struct demo_client {
+		struct mbox_client cl;
+		struct mbox_chan *mbox;
+		struct completion c;
+		bool async;
+		/* ... */
+	};
+
+	/*
+	* This is the handler for data received from remote. The behaviour is purely
+	* dependent upon the protocol. This is just an example.
+	*/
+	static void message_from_remote(struct mbox_client *cl, void *mssg)
+	{
+		struct demo_client *dc = container_of(cl, struct demo_client, cl);
+		if (dc->async) {
+			if (is_an_ack(mssg)) {
+				/* An ACK to our last sample sent */
+				return; /* Or do something else here */
+			} else { /* A new message from remote */
+				queue_req(mssg);
+			}
+		} else {
+			/* Remote f/w sends only ACK packets on this channel */
+			return;
+		}
+	}
+
+	static void sample_sent(struct mbox_client *cl, void *mssg, int r)
+	{
+		struct demo_client *dc = container_of(cl, struct demo_client, cl);
+		complete(&dc->c);
+	}
+
+	static void client_demo(struct platform_device *pdev)
+	{
+		struct demo_client *dc_sync, *dc_async;
+		/* The controller already knows async_pkt and sync_pkt */
+		struct async_pkt ap;
+		struct sync_pkt sp;
+
+		dc_sync = kzalloc_obj(*dc_sync);
+		dc_async = kzalloc_obj(*dc_async);
+
+		/* Populate non-blocking mode client */
+		dc_async->cl.dev = &pdev->dev;
+		dc_async->cl.rx_callback = message_from_remote;
+		dc_async->cl.tx_done = sample_sent;
+		dc_async->cl.tx_block = false;
+		dc_async->cl.tx_tout = 0; /* doesn't matter here */
+		dc_async->cl.knows_txdone = false; /* depending upon protocol */
+		dc_async->async = true;
+		init_completion(&dc_async->c);
+
+		/* Populate blocking mode client */
+		dc_sync->cl.dev = &pdev->dev;
+		dc_sync->cl.rx_callback = message_from_remote;
+		dc_sync->cl.tx_done = NULL; /* operate in blocking mode */
+		dc_sync->cl.tx_block = true;
+		dc_sync->cl.tx_tout = 500; /* by half a second */
+		dc_sync->cl.knows_txdone = false; /* depending upon protocol */
+		dc_sync->async = false;
+
+		/* ASync mailbox is listed second in 'mboxes' property */
+		dc_async->mbox = mbox_request_channel(&dc_async->cl, 1);
+		/* Populate data packet */
+		/* ap.xxx = 123; etc */
+		/* Send async message to remote */
+		mbox_send_message(dc_async->mbox, &ap);
+
+		/* Sync mailbox is listed first in 'mboxes' property */
+		dc_sync->mbox = mbox_request_channel(&dc_sync->cl, 0);
+		/* Populate data packet */
+		/* sp.abc = 123; etc */
+		/* Send message to remote in blocking mode */
+		mbox_send_message(dc_sync->mbox, &sp);
+		/* At this point 'sp' has been sent */
+
+		/* Now wait for async chan to be done */
+		wait_for_completion(&dc_async->c);
+	}