linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] firmware: QCOM_SCM: Allow qcom_scm driver to be loadable as a permenent module

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:   Thu, 29 Oct 2020 23:09:21 -0700
From:   John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Maulik Shah <mkshah@...eaurora.org>,
        Lina Iyer <ilina@...eaurora.org>,
        Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] firmware: QCOM_SCM: Allow qcom_scm driver to be
 loadable as a permenent module

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 6:51 AM Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 10:53:47PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> > Alternatively, I'm considering trying to switch the module dependency
> > annotation so that the CONFIG_QCOM_SCM modularity depends on ARM_SMMU
> > being a module. But that is sort of putting the restriction on the
> > callee instead of the caller (sort of flipping the meaning of the
> > depends), which feels prone to later trouble (and with multiple users
> > of CONFIG_QCOM_SCM needing similar treatment, it would make it
> > difficult to discover the right combination of configs needed to allow
> > it to be a module).
> >
> > Anyway, I wanted to reach out to see if you had any further ideas
> > here. Sorry for letting such a large time gap pass!
>
> Well we can always go with your original hack, if it helps?
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/20200714075603.GE4277@willie-the-truck/

Yea. After trying a few more ideas that didn't pan out, I think I'm
going to fall back to that. :(

thanks
-john