linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 03/18] platform/x86: intel_scu

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: <20200212114341.GW2667@lahna.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Feb 2020 13:43:41 +0200
From:   Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        Zha Qipeng <qipeng.zha@...el.com>,
        "David E . Box" <david.e.box@...ux.intel.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/18] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Introduce new SCU
 IPC API

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 05:48:41PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 04:25:48PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > The current SCU IPC API has been operating on a single instance and
> > there has been no way to pin the providing module in place when the SCU
> > IPC is in use.
> > 
> > This implements a new API that takes the SCU IPC instance as first
> > parameter (NULL means the single instance is being used). The SCU IPC
> > instance can be retrieved by calling new function
> > intel_scu_ipc_dev_get() that take care of pinning the providing module
> > in place as long as intel_scu_ipc_dev_put() is not called.
> > 
> > The old API and constants that are still being used are left there to
> > support existing users that cannot be converted easily but they are put
> > to a separate header that is subject to be removed eventually.
> > Subsequent patches will convert most of the users over to the new API.
> 
> I'm thinking now if it would be better to do this in two steps, i.e. split out
> legacy header first and then introduce new API?

No problem doing that but I'm not sure what's the benefit over what is
done now?