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

Message-ID: <CAMRc=Mf110U72BtFT7ewQhB_+-Da1NNZ0kNNQOA2dx9QQ2-iHg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 21:44:39 +0200
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To: Rudraksha Gupta <guptarud@...il.com>
Cc: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>, 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

On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 8:01 PM Rudraksha Gupta <guptarud@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > 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!
>

Thanks! In any case, this series should still be merged to not break
existing users (even if the kcalloc() fallback will be removed once we
do the refactoring).

Bart