linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Generalize fncpy availability

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:24:44 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        "open list:GENERIC INCLUDE/ASM HEADER FILES" 
        <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@...com>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
        linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        Keerthy J <j-keerthy@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Generalize fncpy availability

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 05:07:40PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> Hi all,

Hi Florian,

> This patch series makes ARM's fncpy() implementation more generic (dropping the
> Thumb-specifics) and available in an asm-generic header file.
> 
> Tested on a Broadcom ARM64 STB platform with code that is written to SRAM.
> 
> Changes in v3 (thanks Doug!):
> - correct include guard names in asm-generic/fncpy.h to __ASM_FNCPY_H
> - utilize Kbuild to provide the fncpy.h header on ARM64
> 
> Changes in v2:
> - leave the ARM implementation where it is
> - make the generic truly generic (no)
> 
> This is helpful in making SoC-specific power management code become true drivers
> that can be shared between different architectures.

Could you elaborate on what this is needed for?

My understanding was that on 32-bit, this was to handle idle / suspend
cases, whereas for arm64 that should be handled by PSCI.

what exactly do you intend to use this for?

Thanks,
Mark.