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]

Date:   Wed, 12 Feb 2020 13:55:41 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...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 Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 01:43:41PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> 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?

That's what I'm trying to figure out. Would it be? Maybe you can play with it
locally and decide which one is better?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko