linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] mailbox: arm: introduce smc triggered mailbox

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Tue, 1 Aug 2017 21:20:08 +0530
From:   Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>
To:     Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>
Cc:     Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>, Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@...c.xyz>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Devicetree List <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] mailbox: arm: introduce smc triggered mailbox

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de> wrote:
> Hi Andre,
>
> On 24.07.17 01:23, Andre Przywara wrote:
>>
>> This is a reworked version of my previous post. It addresses Jassi's
>> comments on the driver and also tries to cover Rob's and Mark's comments
>> on the binding documentation.
>> I dropped the more example-like DT changes from v1, as they are actually
>> not meant to be merged into the Linux tree, but instead are provided as
>> part of some firmware actually implementing this functionality.
>>
>> Please let me know what you think.
>
>
> Could you please quickly explain what it would take to provide SCMI on top
> of this instead of SCPI?
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/6/7/624
>
The SCMI (and SCPI) code is broken, that is, unless the firmware/SM is
trained to ignore the random value (pointer to a structure) passed via
R1. Which may be possible to do, but is surely a sign of poor
implementation. And may not be possible if some protocol other than
SCMI runs in parallel.

Andre, your take please?

Thanks.