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]
Message-ID: <1f01ea8e-8953-82ae-933c-721385dc0c13@gmail.com>
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ