[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9f6f009d-a2c0-4a6c-b9df-4045f767f8ab@lunn.ch>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2025 23:48:18 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Choong Yong Liang <yong.liang.choong@...ux.intel.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>,
Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>,
David E Box <david.e.box@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Rajneesh Bhardwaj <irenic.rajneesh@...il.com>,
David E Box <david.e.box@...el.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
Jiawen Wu <jiawenwu@...stnetic.com>,
Mengyuan Lou <mengyuanlou@...-swift.com>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 3/7] arch: x86: add IPC mailbox accessor
function and add SoC register access
On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 08:46:24AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 2/6/25 05:18, Choong Yong Liang wrote:
> >
> > - Exports intel_pmc_ipc() for host access to the PMC IPC mailbox
> > - Add support to use IPC command allows host to access SoC registers
> > through PMC firmware that are otherwise inaccessible to the host due
> > to security policies.
>
> I'm not quite parsing that second bullet as a complete sentence.
>
> But that sounds scary! Why is the fact that they are "otherwise
> inaccessible" relevant here?
And i wounder what other interesting things can be accessed in this
indirect manor, which the security policy would not otherwise allow.
Somebody is going to have fun here. Or is already have fun here.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists