linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 2/2] 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 28 May 2020 13:05:16 +0000
From:   Jose Marinho <Jose.Marinho@....com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@....com>
CC:     Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Harb Abdulhamid (harb@...erecomputing.com)" 
        <harb@...erecomputing.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Francois Ozog <francois.ozog@...aro.org>, nd <nd@....com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] firmware: smccc: Add ARCH_SOC_ID support


> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 7:27 PM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 08:41:59PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 6:54 PM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > jep106:5678 (the IMP_DEF_SOC_ID field in my example) would probably
> > > be sufficient to not conflict with a another soc_device driver, but
> > > is quite likely to clash with an ID used by another manufacturer.
> > >
> >
> > IIUC, you are fine with "jep106:1234:5678" where 1234 is jep106
> manufacture
> > id code and 5678 is soc_id as it may avoid all the conflicts across
> > the manufacture namespaces.
> 
> I think either jep106:5678 or jep106:1234:5678 (or some variation with
> different field separators if you prefer) would be fine here.
> 
> > > jep106:1234 (the manufacturer ID) in turn seems too broad from
> > > the soc_id field, as that would include every chip made by one
> > > company.
> > >
> >
> > I understand, and IIUC you prefer this to be embedded with soc_id
> > especially to avoid namespace conflicts which makes sense.
> >
> > Thanks for all the discussion and valuable inputs. I am now bit nervous
> > to add SoC info from SMCCC ARCH_SOC_ID to sysfs yet as we need more
> info
> > especially "machine" and "serial_number" for elsewhere(OEM firmware
> mostly
> > from DT or ACPI).
> 
> I probably wouldn't mix those in with the same driver. If machine and
> serial_number have no smccc interface, then they should be left out,
> but there could be a separate soc_device that gets that information
> by other means, usually using one of the existing hardware id register
> drivers.
> 
> > TBH, the mix might be bit of a mess as there are soc drivers that rely
> > on DT completely today. Anyways, this SOC_ID can be added as library that
> > can be used by a *generic* soc driver once we define a standard way to
> > fetch other information("machine" and "serial_number"). I am happy to
> > get suggestions on that front especially from you and Francois as you
> > have got some context already.
> 
> Well, I suppose we could have the entire data from the smccc interface
> in a central place somewhere, such as (to stay with my example)
> "1234:5678:9abcdef0" in an attribute of any soc_device driver that
> adds a call to a library function for the jep106 ID, or possibly in
> /sys/firmware or even a field added to /proc/cpuinfo.

I think this is a great way to expose the SoC ID info. It's important to have the SoC ID as a whole in a sysfs (or somewhere where it's easy to obtain and parse from user-space).
The information provided by SoC ID should be listed in this form jep106:1234:5678, that is jep106:<manufacturer ID>:<SoC ID> .

Regards,

Jose