linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 10/14] firmware: qcom_scm: Add SHM bridge handling for PAS when running without QHEE

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: <7a5d188d-989f-4843-a10d-0fbad94a9ef0@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2025 11:17:23 +0100
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
To: Mukesh Ojha <mukesh.ojha@....qualcomm.com>,
        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>,
        Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 10/14] firmware: qcom_scm: Add SHM bridge handling for
 PAS when running without QHEE

On 11/4/25 8:35 AM, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> On SoCs running with a non-Gunyah-based hypervisor, Linux must take
> responsibility for creating the SHM bridge both for metadata (before
> calling qcom_scm_pas_init_image()) and for remoteproc memory (before
> calling qcom_scm_pas_auth_and_reset()). We have taken care the things
> required for qcom_scm_pas_auth_and_reset().
> 
> Lets put these awareness of above conditions into
> qcom_scm_pas_init_image() and qcom_scm_pas_metadata_release().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mukesh Ojha <mukesh.ojha@....qualcomm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c
> index aabdef295492..9d3e45ec73ac 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c
> @@ -625,6 +625,33 @@ static int __qcom_scm_pas_init_image(u32 pas_id, dma_addr_t mdata_phys, void *me
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> +static int qcom_scm_pas_prep_and_init_image(struct qcom_scm_pas_context *ctx,
> +					    const void *metadata, size_t size)
> +{
> +	struct qcom_scm_pas_metadata *mdt_ctx;
> +	struct qcom_scm_res res;
> +	phys_addr_t mdata_phys;
> +	void *mdata_buf;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	mdata_buf = qcom_tzmem_alloc(__scm->mempool, size, GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!mdata_buf)
> +		return -ENOMEM;

I'm still a little sour about this function having to be separate just
because we use a different allocator..

Did we conclude that using set_dma_ops(some_tzmem_ops) was not going to
work?

Konrad