linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] firmware: qcom: scm: fall back to kcalloc() for no SCM device bound

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: <8d9fde52-2582-499f-a971-e9aa46b23fa2@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 11:01:16 -0700
From: Rudraksha Gupta <guptarud@...il.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
 Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Cc: Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@...cinc.com>,
 Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
 Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, Andrew Halaney
 <ahalaney@...hat.com>,
 "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)" <regressions@...mhuis.info>,
 linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] firmware: qcom: scm: fall back to kcalloc() for no
 SCM device bound

> I'm wondering about how to approach an eventual refactoring and I'm
> thinking that for platforms that are known to have DTs out there
> without the node, we could exceptionally instantiate the SCM device
> when the module is loaded? And then modify the driver to require the
> provider to have an actual struct device attached.


I'm happy to help test these changes if you'd like!