linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 13/18] firmware: qcom_scm-32: Move SMCCC register filling to qcom_scm

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: <5dd46719.1c69fb81.ccbc2.f01d@mx.google.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Nov 2019 14:05:12 -0800
From:   Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
To:     Elliot Berman <eberman@...eaurora.org>, agross@...nel.org,
        bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org
Cc:     Elliot Berman <eberman@...eaurora.org>, tsoni@...eaurora.org,
        sidgup@...eaurora.org, psodagud@...eaurora.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/18] firmware: qcom_scm-32: Move SMCCC register filling to qcom_scm_call

Quoting Elliot Berman (2019-11-12 13:22:49)
> - Move SMCCC register filling to qcom_scm_call so that qcom_scm_call_do
>   only needs to concern itself with retry mechanism.
> - Use arm_smccc_args struct in atomic variants as well.

This is two things. Please split the patch.

> @@ -266,10 +272,14 @@ static int qcom_scm_call(struct device *dev, struct qcom_scm_desc *desc)
>  static s32 qcom_scm_call_atomic1(u32 svc, u32 cmd, u32 arg1)
>  {
>         int context_id;
> +       struct arm_smccc_args smc = {0};
>         struct arm_smccc_res res;
>  
> -       arm_smccc_smc(LEGACY_ATOMIC_ID(svc, cmd, 1), (unsigned long)&context_id,
> -                     arg1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, &res);
> +       smc.a[0] = LEGACY_ATOMIC_ID(svc, cmd, 1);
> +       smc.a[1] = (unsigned long)&context_id;
> +       smc.a[2] = arg1;
> +       arm_smccc_smc(smc.a[0], smc.a[1], smc.a[2], smc.a[3],
> +                     smc.a[4], smc.a[5], smc.a[6], smc.a[7], &res);
>  
>         return res.a0;
>  }
> @@ -287,10 +297,15 @@ static s32 qcom_scm_call_atomic1(u32 svc, u32 cmd, u32 arg1)
>  static s32 qcom_scm_call_atomic2(u32 svc, u32 cmd, u32 arg1, u32 arg2)
>  {
>         int context_id;
> +       struct arm_smccc_args smc = {0};
>         struct arm_smccc_res res;
>  
> -       arm_smccc_smc(LEGACY_ATOMIC_ID(svc, cmd, 2), (unsigned long)&context_id,
> -                     arg1, arg2, 0, 0, 0, 0, &res);
> +       smc.a[0] = LEGACY_ATOMIC_ID(svc, cmd, 2);
> +       smc.a[1] = (unsigned long)&context_id;
> +       smc.a[2] = arg1;
> +       smc.a[3] = arg2;
> +       arm_smccc_smc(smc.a[0], smc.a[1], smc.a[2], smc.a[3],
> +                     smc.a[4], smc.a[5], smc.a[6], smc.a[7], &res);
>  
>         return res.a0;
>  }

Why are we changing the above two hunks? It's the same code with more
lines right?