linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 06/26] psci: Add accessor for psci_0_1_function

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: <20201203105102.zpnjielsqdf3z3ox@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Dec 2020 10:51:02 +0000
From:   David Brazdil <dbrazdil@...gle.com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@...il.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/26] psci: Add accessor for psci_0_1_function_ids

On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 10:47:12AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 06:41:02PM +0000, David Brazdil wrote:
> > Make it possible to retrieve a copy of the psci_0_1_function_ids struct.
> > This is useful for KVM if it is configured to intercept host's PSCI SMCs.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: David Brazdil <dbrazdil@...gle.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
> 
> ... just to check, does KVM snapshot which function IDs are valid, or do
> we want to add that state here too? That can be a follow-up if
> necessary.

Ah, that's a good point. It doesn't, but can infer that from psci_ops.