linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: defconfig: Enable secure QFPROM driver

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]

Message-ID: <ZnMKh5X+Bm11L/T4@hu-bjorande-lv.qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 09:42:47 -0700
From: Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@...cinc.com>
To: Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>
CC: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Komal Bajaj
	<quic_kbajaj@...cinc.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        "Will
 Deacon" <will@...nel.org>,
        Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Srinivas Kandagatla
	<srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: defconfig: Enable secure QFPROM driver

On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 05:40:42PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 01:08:48PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 19/06/2024 12:56, Komal Bajaj wrote:
> > > Enable the secure QFPROM driver which is used by QDU1000
> > 
> > Qualcomm QDU1000. You are changing kernel-wide defconfig, not some
> > Qualcomm downstream stuff.
> > 
> > > platform for reading the secure qfprom region to get the
> > > DDR channel configuration.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Komal Bajaj <quic_kbajaj@...cinc.com>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 +
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
> > > index 838b4466d6f6..c940437ae1b3 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
> > > @@ -1575,6 +1575,7 @@ CONFIG_NVMEM_LAYERSCAPE_SFP=m
> > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_MESON_EFUSE=m
> > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_MTK_EFUSE=y
> > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM=y
> > > +CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM=y
> > 
> > Module
> 
> Should not this be inline with what CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM is having ?
> Either both CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM and CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM
> should be m or both y
> 

While that would be a convenient guideline, you're adding runtime
overhead to all other targets (Qualcomm and non-Qualcomm) so the desire
to keep anything that can module outweigh such convenience.

Based on the recent addition of llcc and qfprom nodes I'm _guessing_
that LLCC is the one user of this today, and it is =m, so therefore
SEC_QFPROM can be =m as well.


By expanding the commit message slightly, we could have avoided the
"why?" questions and the need for me to "guess" the actual dependency.

Regards,
Bjorn

> -Mukesh
> > 
> > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_RMEM=m
> > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_ROCKCHIP_EFUSE=y
> > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_ROCKCHIP_OTP=y
> > > --
> > > 2.42.0
> > > 
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Krzysztof
> >