linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] firmware: arm_scmi: imx: Support getting syslog of MISC protocol

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: <20250912-rampant-lemming-of-champagne-54ca7a@sudeepholla>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2025 11:28:06 +0100
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
Cc: "Peng Fan (OSS)" <peng.fan@....nxp.com>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
	Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
	Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	"Pengutronix Kernel Team" <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
	Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
	"arm-scmi@...r.kernel.org" <arm-scmi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"imx@...ts.linux.dev" <imx@...ts.linux.dev>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] firmware: arm_scmi: imx: Support getting syslog
 of MISC protocol

On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 11:15:37AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> Hi Sudeep,
> 
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] firmware: arm_scmi: imx: Support getting
> > syslog of MISC protocol
> > 
> > >
> > > I checked with firmware owner, this should be using raw dump.
> > > The layout would be changed for new platforms.
> > >
> > > Since this is raw dump, I think debugfs might be preferred.
> > >
> > 
> > It can be sysfs, but it can be just one single 4K dump, no more details
> > from the kernel than just raw bytes.
> 
> Thanks for approving the use of sysfs. However, I've already developed
> a patchset based on debugfs, and following a recent internal discussion,
> the consensus is to keep this functionality for debugging purposes.
> Given that, I'm inclined to continue using debugfs unless there are
> any objections.
> 

No objections if this is for debug purposes only and you do understand
CONFIG_DEBUG_FS is disabled always in production images. Basically you
can't ask customers to share the info from there as it doesn't exist 😉.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep