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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <c23f9f69-d095-233e-c20e-b99e6f3921e5@quicinc.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 15:13:51 +0530
From: Komal Bajaj <quic_kbajaj@...cinc.com>
To: Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@...cinc.com>,
        Mukesh Ojha
	<quic_mojha@...cinc.com>
CC: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        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 6/19/2024 10:12 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> 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.
> 

Thanks Bjorn for the suggestion.
I will incorporate the suggested changes in the next patch.

Thanks
Komal

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