[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45eb9c5b-bc8e-4866-bbaf-5afaed9fda21@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2025 23:16:28 +0100
From: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
To: Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>,
Mukesh Ojha <mukesh.ojha@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
<conor+dt@...nel.org>, Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 03/12] firmware: qcom_scm: Introduce PAS context
initialization and destroy helper
On 07/10/2025 22:23, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
>> +void qcom_scm_pas_context_destroy(struct qcom_scm_pas_context *ctx)
>> +{
>> + kfree(ctx->metadata);
>> + ctx->metadata = NULL;
>> + ctx->dev = NULL;
>> + ctx->pas_id = 0;
>> + ctx->mem_phys = 0;
>> + ctx->mem_size = 0;
> Why do you need to zero initialize these fields before freeing? Are they
> carrying any sensitive data that warrants zero initialization?
Mukesh, have to say I don't think adding my RB to this patch is really
warranted.
I gave review feedback that the above looked odd.
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/9139706a-708c-4be6-a994-120cce0cd0e6@linaro.org
Could you please drop my RB here, and fix the above in your next version.
Also please add me to the cc list for the whole series.
---
bod
Powered by blists - more mailing lists