linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] watchdog: Add driver for Gunyah Watchdog

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: <7f49e7cb-c102-4e89-9aaa-73ba2998f4fd@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 17:29:37 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Pavan Kondeti <pavan.kondeti@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: Hrishabh Rajput <hrishabh.rajput@....qualcomm.com>,
 Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
 Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>,
 Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>, Guenter Roeck
 <linux@...ck-us.net>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] watchdog: Add driver for Gunyah Watchdog

On 28/10/2025 17:17, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 28/10/2025 13:27, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 12:07:40PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 28/10/2025 12:04, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 28/10/2025 11:58, Hrishabh Rajput wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/28/2025 3:10 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 28/10/2025 10:35, Hrishabh Rajput via B4 Relay wrote:
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +static int __init gunyah_wdt_init(void)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> +	struct arm_smccc_res res;
>>>>>>> +	struct device_node *np;
>>>>>>> +	int ret;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +	/* Check if we're running on a Qualcomm device */
>>>>>>> +	np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "qcom,smem");
>>>>>> I don't think you implemented my feedback. This again is executed on
>>>>>> every platform, e.g. on Samsung, pointlessly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Implement previous feedback.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you want us to add platform device from another driver which is 
>>>>> probed only on Qualcomm devices (like socinfo from previous discussion) 
>>>>> and get rid of the module init function entirely? As keeping anything in 
>>>>> the module init will get it executed on all platforms.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of asking the same can you read previous discussion? What is
>>>> unclear here:
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/3b901f9d-dbfa-4f93-a8d2-3e89bd9783c9@kernel.org/
>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> With this patch version, we have tried to reduce the code execution on 
>>>>> non-Qualcomm devices (also tried the alternative as mentioned in the 
>>>>> cover letter). Adding platform device from another driver as described 
>>>>> above would eliminate it entirely, please let us know if you want us to 
>>>>> do that.
>>>>
>>>> Why do I need to repeat the same as last time?
>>>
>>>
>>> Now I see that you completely ignored previous discussion and sent THE
>>> SAME approach.
>>
>> Our intention is not to waste reviewers time at all. It is just a
>> misunderstanding on what your comment is about. Let me elaborate further
>> not to defend our approach here but to get a clarity so that we don't
>> end up in the same situation when v4 is posted.
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/b94d8ca3-af58-4a78-9a5a-12e3db0bf75f@kernel.org/ 
>>
>> You mentioned here
>>
>> ```
>> To me socinfo feels even better. That way only, really only qcom devices
>> will execute this SMC.
>> ```
>>
>> We interpreted this comment as `avoid executing this SMC on non qcom
>> devices`. That is exactly what we have done in the current patch. since
> 
> 
> So where did you use socinfo? Point me to the code.


To recall my previous feedback:

"No, your hypervisor driver (which you have) should start the module via
adding platform/aux/something devices."

"To me socinfo feels even better."

And you ignored both and took some further part claiming that
invalidates previous feedback. I don't know how to stress it more. You
really do not read what was given to you.

If you call any module_init other than module_foo_driver I will keep
NAKing your patch because it is wrong. I explained why wrong already
multiple times in previous threads and other discussions.

Best regards,
Krzysztof