linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] dt-bindings: firmware: Add Qualcomm UEFI Secure Application client

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 Jul 2022 12:49:17 +0200
From:   Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc:     Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Steev Klimaszewski <steev@...i.org>,
        Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] dt-bindings: firmware: Add Qualcomm UEFI Secure
 Application client

On 7/28/22 12:38, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 28/07/2022 12:25, Maximilian Luz wrote:
>> On 7/28/22 09:48, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>
>>> For example like tegra_bpmp_get() is doing.
>>
>> But tegra_bpmp_get() can also not differentiate whether the supplier driver is
>> ever going to be successfully probed or not. I'm not sure you can ever really
>> solve that. The only thing it does in addition is check whether the phandle and
>> device is there. Or do you mean those not being present by "broken"? That's a
>> point I agree should be improved with SCM.
> 
> Yes, at least it checks if phandles points to proper device and device
> is there. That's what we want.
> 
> We are not solving here case of providing being in a module which never
> gets loaded (thus endless EPROBE_DEFER). Such case is ok.

Got it, thanks for that clarification!

Regards,
Max