linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Allow parameter in smc/hvc calls

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:37:23 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Nikunj Kela <quic_nkela@...cinc.com>
Cc:     cristian.marussi@....com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lkp@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Allow parameter in smc/hvc calls

On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 07:42:50AM -0700, Nikunj Kela wrote:

> that's a good suggestion. Any solution you propose shouldn't just limit to
> only one parameter. IMO, there should be some way to pass all 6 parameters
> since we do have a use case of at least two parameters.

Please elaborate on your use-case.

> The shmem proposal is fine however please also incorporate passing of other
> parameters.

You are missing the point here. SMC/HVC is just a doorbell and the main point
I made earlier is that there is no need for vendors to try colourful things
here if it is not necessary. So no, I don't want any extra bindings or more
than one param is that is not needed. I will wait for the reason as requested
above.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep