linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "firmware: qcom: qseecom: convert to using the TZ allocator"

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: <CAMRc=Mcwe0nV=pgfk=Wezq5eopJiZZii=BZ162QknT0t1Uf9Rw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 13:51:30 +0200
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>, Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>, 
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>, 
	Amirreza Zarrabi <quic_azarrabi@...cinc.com>, 
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>, Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@...cinc.com>, 
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	regressions@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "firmware: qcom: qseecom: convert to using the TZ allocator"

On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 1:35 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 2:49 PM Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 02:35:39PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 11:58 AM Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This reverts commit 6612103ec35af6058bb85ab24dae28e119b3c055.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Using the "TZ allocator" for qcseecom breaks efivars on machines like
> > > > > > the Lenovo ThinkPad X13s and x1e80100 CRD:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >         qcom_scm firmware:scm: qseecom: scm call failed with error -22
> >
> > > How do you reproduce this on x1e?
> >
> > Just boot 6.11-rc1 and you should see the above error (and there are no
> > variables under /sys/firmware/efi/efivars/).
> >
> > Johan
>
> I'm trying to figure out what the difference is with and without
> tzmem. Surprisingly the physical address passed down to the SCM call
> is actually the same in both cases.
>
> I figured that maybe using different struct device for the underlying
> dma_alloc_coherent() would be the culprit but I checked and no.
>
> I'm still on it.
>
> Bart

Nevermind, I found the culprit. I will send a fix proposal shortly.

Bart