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:   Mon, 22 Mar 2021 10:28:53 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
Cc:     Richard Gong <richard.gong@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@...nel.org>, kbuild-all@...ts.01.org,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: stratix10-svc: build only on 64-bit ARM

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 9:26 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com> wrote:
> On 21/03/2021 22:09, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> The SMC has two calling conventions - SMC32/HVC32 and SMC64/HVC64. The
> Stratix 10 driver uses the 64-bit calling convention (see
> INTEL_SIP_SMC_FAST_CALL_VAL in
> include/linux/firmware/intel/stratix10-smc.h), so it should not run in
> aarch32 (regardless of type of hardware).
>
> I think that my patch limiting the support to 64-bit makes sense.

I see that this is the only driver in the kernel that doesn't support the
32-bit calling conventions though, everything else either uses the the 32-bit
calling conventions unconditionally, or picks the ones matching the
kernel execution state.

If the firmware supports both, it would seem best to change the driver
to work like the other ones and pick the appropriate interface based
on what kernel it's running on.

If the firmware is fundamentally limited to the 64-bit interface, your
patch does seem correct, but I'd suggest explaining that in the
changelog.

         Arnd

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ