linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 03/12] firmware: qcom_scm: Introduce PAS context initialization and destroy helper

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: <20251008075153.wjvlnjr3iuncfued@hu-mojha-hyd.qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2025 13:21:53 +0530
From: Mukesh Ojha <mukesh.ojha@....qualcomm.com>
To: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
Cc: Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>,
        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 Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 11:16:28PM +0100, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> 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?

Nothing special about the data.

> 
> 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.

Sorry if I misunderstood your comment on this particular patch.

I assumed your concern was regarding the manual destroy call, and I
responded to that point. Since I didn’t receive a follow-up on that, I
proceeded to address all other comments and added your Reviewed-by tag.

However, since we are revisiting this discussion, it seems appropriate
to remove the destroy function altogether and switch to using devm_
APIs.

> 
> Also please add me to the cc list for the whole series.

Will surely do it, thanks.

> 
> ---
> bod

-- 
-Mukesh Ojha