linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <0c9e5d7e-effc-6601-bc09-98ca74479833@quicinc.com>
Date:   Fri, 30 Jun 2023 08:14:46 -0700
From:   Nikunj Kela <quic_nkela@...cinc.com>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] Allow parameter in smc/hvc calls


On 6/30/2023 2:44 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 01:38:32PM -0700, Nikunj Kela wrote:
>> On 5/31/2023 5:26 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>> On Sat, 06 May 2023 11:24:26 -0700, Nikunj Kela wrote:
>>>> Currently, smc/hvc calls are made with parameters set
>>>> to zeros. We are using multiple scmi instances within
>>>> a VM. We are sharing the same smc-id(func_id) with all
>>>> scmi instance. The hypervisor needs a way to distinguish
>>>> among hvc calls made from different instances.
>>>>
>>>> This patch series introduces new compatible string which
>>>> can be used to pass shmem channel address as parameters
>>>> to smc/hvc calls.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>> Applied to sudeep.holla/linux (for-next/scmi/updates), thanks!
>> Hi Sudeep, our hypervisor team is evaluating other scmi transport
>> options(including new qcom specific transport) along with this one so there
>> is a possibility that we might not use this solution. If you think this
>> patch is not useful to others, you can hold off its merge. Sorry about the
>> last minute inconvenience.
> Firstly, not sure why you took this in private. I am going to reply on the
> list and from now on I will never trust or rush to take any Qualcomm changes.
> Nothing personal but I have to follow that to keep it simple. It is in
> Linux tree yesterday or today and yes it is too late.
I understand your frustration and trust me I am even more disappointed 
by the decision by our hypervisor team and that too this late.  My 
efforts on this series are all wasted. If you like me to post a revert 
of this patch series, I will be happy to do that. Please don't let this 
one example reflect whole Qualcomm culture. Again, extremely sorry about 
all the efforts you put in.
>