linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 07/11] firmware: qcom_scm: Add qcom_scm_pas_get_rsc

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: <20250822072143.3amvvxjwldmphtis@hu-mojha-hyd.qualcomm.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2025 12:51:43 +0530
From: Mukesh Ojha <mukesh.ojha@....qualcomm.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>,
        Vikash Garodia <quic_vgarodia@...cinc.com>,
        Dikshita Agarwal <quic_dikshita@...cinc.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        Abhinav Kumar <abhinav.kumar@...ux.dev>,
        Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/11] firmware: qcom_scm: Add
 qcom_scm_pas_get_rsc_table() to get resource table

On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 08:22:10AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 21/08/2025 19:20, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> >>
> >> Srsly, what sort of AI hallucinated slop it is?
> >>
> >> I think this is pretty close to proof that your submission does not meet
> >> criteria of open source contribution.
> >>
> >> Did you run any of this through your legal process in Qualcomm?
> >>
> >> I don't trust any part of this code.
> > 
> > I don't know what made you think that way. There could be confusion with
> > my writing and may not have expressed the thing i wanted.
> Commits were written by two different people, but signed only by you.
> They have 100% different style and the other looks like taken out of
> ChatGPT.

I am not expert here how things written and understand by them and
ChatGPT are not used by my organisation.

> 
> Editing patches post factum is another reason.
> 
> Reasoning here is typical for LLM - first claim something ("static is
> possible"), then claim another ("dynamic are always") and then connect
> these two to create false third statement (static and dynamic are always).

Again, I am not an english expert as it is not my first language but I am
explaining again about my thought process, writing for some of devices
where this is the case hence it is written in separate paragraph and the
reason behind, "static is possible" written with chrome in mind which
is true, and "dynamic is always" going to come from EL2(gunyah) and from
TZ on Gunyah absence and this is also true as they are decided on runtime
and not all devices have this dynamic resource requirement.

And writing behind this "This indicates that for Qualcomm devices, all
resources (static and dynamic) will be provided by TrustZone via the SMC
call." is in context of this commit where we are going to get this resources
via SMC call with this series in mind which may be slightly confusing to
someone to understand and I will clarify this in next version.

I believe the mistake I did in this patch is that I did not include
Gunyah/QHEE absence which I have done in other parts of series but this
SMC call in future would be used even in case of Gunyah hence, it was
not used.

I know that I will have to declare these things if I use such tool and if it
falls within my company legal framework.

> 
> You got three strong indications. So this is what made me think that way.
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

-- 
-Mukesh Ojha