linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] firmware: smccc: Add ARCH_SOC

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: <20200518115546.GB16262@bogus>
Date:   Mon, 18 May 2020 12:55:46 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Steven Price <steven.price@....com>, harb@...erecomputing.com,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] firmware: smccc: Add ARCH_SOC_ID support

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 11:30:21AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 11:12 AM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
>
> > +static ssize_t
> > +jep106_cont_bank_code_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> > +                          char *buf)
> > +{
> > +       return sprintf(buf, "0x%02x\n", JEP106_BANK_CONT_CODE(soc_id_version));
> > +}
> > +
> > +static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(jep106_cont_bank_code);
> > +
> > +static ssize_t
> > +jep106_identification_code_show(struct device *dev,
> > +                               struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> > +{
> > +       return sprintf(buf, "0x%02x\n", JEP106_ID_CODE(soc_id_version));
> > +}
>
> I think we should try hard to avoid nonstandard attributes for the soc device.
>

I agree with that in general but this is bit different for below mentioned
reason.

> Did you run into a problem with finding one of the existing attributes
> that can be used to hold the fields?
>

Not really! The 2 JEP106 codes can be used to derive the manufacturer which
could match one of the existing attributes. However doing so might require
importing the huge JEP106 list as it needs to be maintained and updated
in the kernel. Also that approach will have the compatibility issue and
that is the reason for introducing these attributes representing raw
values for userspace.

--
Regards,
Sudeep