linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] firmware: qcom_scm: Only compile legacy calls on ARM

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]

Message-ID: <161791670545.3790633.14772376161713976241@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date:   Thu, 08 Apr 2021 14:18:25 -0700
From:   Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
To:     Stephan Gerhold <stephan@...hold.net>
Cc:     Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Elliot Berman <eberman@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        Brian Masney <masneyb@...tation.org>,
        Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@...eaurora.org>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] firmware: qcom_scm: Only compile legacy calls on ARM

Quoting Stephan Gerhold (2021-04-08 00:19:44)
> Personally, I think it would be best to introduce a new, SMC64 only
> compatible (e.g. "qcom,scm-64" like I mentioned). Then you can skip the
> detection check for the boards that opt-in by adding the compatible.
> You can then use it on all newer boards/SoCs/firmwares where you know
> exactly that there is SMC64.
> 
> I would just like to avoid breaking any existing boards where we don't
> know exactly if they have SMC32 or SMC64.

Ok that's fair.

> > 
> > Heh, it tried to ensure we use the right calling convention but broke
> > things in the process, because the way of detecting the convention isn't
> > always there. I wouldn't be surprised if this comes up again for other
> > boards that use TF-A.
> 
> Ah okay, this sounds like a better reason than just trying to avoid the
> "overhead" of the detection step. :) I still think it should work if you
> just start marking all newer boards/SoCs/... as "qcom,scm-64" or
> something like that, right?

Sure. I can cook up a set of patches for this.