linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 for-next] spi: mchp-pci1xxxx: Updated memcpy implementation for x64 and bcm2711 processors

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: <a322bf90b6b02f6dd96023e34d32eb78b1c23ca9.camel@microchip.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 13:58:38 +0000
From: <Rengarajan.S@...rochip.com>
To: <broonie@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 for-next] spi: mchp-pci1xxxx: Updated memcpy
 implementation for x64 and bcm2711 processors

Hi Mark,

Thanks for reviewing the patch and apologies for delayed response.

On Mon, 2025-02-24 at 14:30 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> [Some people who received this message don't often get email from
> broonie@...nel.org. Learn why this is important at 
> https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> 
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you
> know the content is safe

I went through several patches related to similar issues, and mostsuggest handling it on a SoC basis. The reasoning is that a system
may have an affected PCIe root complex while still having other
devices in the SoC that can, or even require, 64-bit accesses.

The following are some of the patches that I had looked into:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210226140305.26356-2-nsaenzjulienne@suse.de/T/#u

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/c188698ca0de3ed6c56a0cf7880e1578aa753077.camel@suse.de/T/#u

Can you please suggest any alternate methods that we could use to
handle this in a more generic manner instead of making it Soc-specific.

Thanks,
Rengarajan S