linux-kernel - Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] firmware: added a firmware information passing method FFI

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:   Sat, 24 Jun 2023 14:52:02 +0200
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To:     运辉崔 <cuiyunhui@...edance.com>
Cc:     ron minnich <rminnich@...il.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>, rafael@...nel.org,
        lenb@...nel.org, jdelvare@...e.com, yc.hung@...iatek.com,
        angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com,
        allen-kh.cheng@...iatek.com, pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com,
        tinghan.shen@...iatek.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, geshijian@...edance.com,
        weidong.wd@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] firmware: added a firmware information
 passing method FFI

On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 at 10:04, 运辉崔 <cuiyunhui@...edance.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for Ron's suggestions.
>
> Hi Ard,  Mark,
> >
> > Is there some feeling here that it would be ok to restrict this discussion to risc-v, and not bring in ARM considerations.  WDYT?
> >
>
> Hi Ard,  Mark,
>
> Now the coreboot we are using does not support EFI and only supports
> one interface DTB. It seems that we have to pass the firmware
> information through DTB.
>
> From another point of view, ACPI and SMBIOS are common modules of the
> kernel, not only EFI, but also other interfaces can also be connected
> to this module, such as 0xF0000 for SMBIOS,
> CONFIG_ACPI_LEGACY_TABLES_LOOKUP for ACPI,  this patch is also.
>
> We just use the DTB channel to add a few nodes to complete the
> transfer of firmware information, which does not interfere with DTS
> itself.
>
> We think it is unnecessary to add an ACPI-supporting framework under
> the fdt framework we discussed before. We only need one set of ACPI
> framework, but one more set will cause unnecessary trouble.
>
> So, let's move on to this patch, shall we?
>

How do you intend to provide the ACPI core with the memory attribute
information that it needs to access SystemMemory OpRegions?