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: <azkfnnz3pmabhnongejtomab7ytoshpdyoutyawf3j6lodmbog@q3ywqp377p4b>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 14:55:34 +0300
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@...cinc.com>, 
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, 
	Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@...hat.com>, Rudraksha Gupta <guptarud@...il.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 01:41:58PM GMT, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 1:06 PM Dmitry Baryshkov
> <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I'm a little concerned about this check. I didn't think making SCM calls
> > > without the SCM device probed was possible until this report. We do
> > > worry about that in the downstream kernel. So, I'm not sure if this
> > > scenario is currently possible in the upstream kernel.
> >
> > MSM8960 and MSM8660 don't have SCM devices. For MSM8960 it should be
> > trivial to get it, c&p from apq8064 should. For MSM8660 it might be a
> > bit harder. But even if we add such nodes, we shouldn't break existing
> > DT files.
> >
> 
> 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.

Might make sense. We should be able to test in on APQ8060 = MSM8660.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry