linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] coresight: cti: Add Qualcomm extended CTI support

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: <20251204104713.GL724103@e132581.arm.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2025 10:47:13 +0000
From: Leo Yan <leo.yan@....com>
To: Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>
Cc: Yingchao Deng <yingchao.deng@....qualcomm.com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
	James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
	Tingwei Zhang <tingwei.zhang@....qualcomm.com>,
	quic_yingdeng@...cinc.com, coresight@...ts.linaro.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
	Jinlong Mao <jinlong.mao@....qualcomm.com>,
	Mao Jinlong <quic_jinlmao@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] coresight: cti: Add Qualcomm extended CTI support

On Thu, Dec 04, 2025 at 09:15:07AM +0000, Mike Leach wrote:

[...]

> > > +             /*
> > > +              * QCOM CTI does not implement Claimtag functionality as
> > > +              * per CoreSight specification, but its CLAIMSET register
> > > +              * is incorrectly initialized to 0xF. This can mislead
> > > +              * tools or drivers into thinking the component is claimed.
> > > +              *
> > > +              * Reset CLAIMSET to 0 to reflect that no claims are active.
> > > +              */
> > > +             writel_relaxed(0, drvdata->base + CORESIGHT_CLAIMSET);
> >
> > I am confused for this.  If QCOM CTI does not implement claim tag,
> > then what is the designed register at the offset CORESIGHT_CLAIMSET?
> >
> > Should you bypass all claim tag related operations for QCOM CTI case?
> > (I don't see you touch anything for claim and declaim tags).
> >
> 
> The patch I have created to handle systems without correct claim tag
> operation is a dependency for this patch set. Thus no need for
> override here as the core code will handle this correctly.
> 
> The only issue is ensuring the non-CTI spec implementation will result
> in the correct detection of no claim tags present.

Your patch works only when a module has implemented claim registers.

This leads to two issues: we end up clearing an unknown register in the
CTI driver, and then the coresight core layer assumes it is reading a
claim register even though it is not.

For QCOM CTI, combined with your patch, I would suggest directly
setting csdev->access.claim_tag_impl to false (perhaps using a helper).
This would be much clearer than the "hacking" way.

Thanks,
Leo