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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 19:48:27 -0700 From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com> To: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>, "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>, "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>, "jassisinghbrar@...il.com" <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>, "sudeep.holla@....com" <sudeep.holla@....com>, "andre.przywara@....com" <andre.przywara@....com> Cc: "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com> Subject: Re: [PATCH V8 2/2] mailbox: introduce ARM SMC based mailbox Hi Peng, On 9/23/2019 6:14 PM, Peng Fan wrote: > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com> > > This mailbox driver implements a mailbox which signals transmitted data > via an ARM smc (secure monitor call) instruction. The mailbox receiver > is implemented in firmware and can synchronously return data when it > returns execution to the non-secure world again. > An asynchronous receive path is not implemented. > This allows the usage of a mailbox to trigger firmware actions on SoCs > which either don't have a separate management processor or on which such > a core is not available. A user of this mailbox could be the SCP > interface. > > Modified from Andre Przywara's v2 patch > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/812999/ > > Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com> > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com> > --- [snip] > +typedef unsigned long (smc_mbox_fn)(unsigned int, unsigned long, > + unsigned long, unsigned long, > + unsigned long, unsigned long, > + unsigned long); > +static smc_mbox_fn *invoke_smc_mbox_fn; Sorry for spotting this so late, the only thing that concerns me here with this singleton is if we happen to have both an arm,smc-mbox and arm,hvc-mbox configured in the system, this would not work. I do not believe this could be a functional use case, but we should probably guard against that or better yet, move that into the arm_smc_chan_data private structure? -- Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists