linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 22/22] firmware: arm_scmi: Add SCMIv3.1 PERFORMANCE_LIMITS

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, 28 Apr 2022 14:49:48 +0100
From:   Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        james.quinlan@...adcom.com, Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, etienne.carriere@...aro.org,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, souvik.chakravarty@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/22] firmware: arm_scmi: Add SCMIv3.1
 PERFORMANCE_LIMITS_SET checks

On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 02:13:57PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 04:05:51PM +0100, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> > Starting with SCMIv3.1, the PERFORMANCE_LIMITS_SET command allows a user
> > to request only one between max and min ranges to be changed, while leaving
> > the other untouched if set to zero in the request; anyway SCMIv3.1 states
> > also explicitly that you cannot leave both of those unchanged (zeroed) when
> > issuing such command: add a proper check for this condition.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c | 3 +++
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
> > index 65ffda5495d6..8f4051aca220 100644
> > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
> > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
> > @@ -423,6 +423,9 @@ static int scmi_perf_limits_set(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph,
> >  	struct scmi_perf_info *pi = ph->get_priv(ph);
> >  	struct perf_dom_info *dom = pi->dom_info + domain;
> >  
> > +	if (PROTOCOL_REV_MAJOR(pi->version) >= 0x3 && !max_perf && !min_perf)
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> 
> Do we really need the version check here ? I agree it was explicitly added
> in v3.1, but it makes sense on any version really. No ?

Indeed seemed a silly patch also to me but given that only in v3.1 it is
explicitly stated that you cannot issue this command with both min and
max ZEROED I though this could have broken older fw that allowed
setting PERF_LIMITS_SET max=0 min=0

....maybe overthought ...

Thanks,
Cristian