linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 03/11] dmaengine: qcom: bam_dma: implement support for BAM locking

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: <aUpyrIvu_kG7DtQm@vaman>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2025 16:15:00 +0530
From: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...nel.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@...il.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Udit Tiwari <quic_utiwari@...cinc.com>,
	Daniel Perez-Zoghbi <dperezzo@...cinc.com>,
	Md Sadre Alam <mdalam@....qualcomm.com>,
	Dmitry Baryshkov <lumag@...nel.org>, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 03/11] dmaengine: qcom: bam_dma: implement support for
 BAM locking

On 17-12-25, 15:31, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 4:11 PM Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org> wrote:

> >
> > I am trying to understand what the flag refers to and why do you need
> > this.. What is the problem that lock tries to solve
> >
> 
> In the DRM use-case the TA will use the QCE simultaneously with linux.

TA..?

> It will perform register I/O with DMA using the BAM locking mechanism
> for synchronization. Currently linux doesn't use BAM locking and is
> using CPU for register I/O so trying to access locked registers will
> result in external abort. I'm trying to make the QCE driver use DMA
> for register I/O AND use BAM locking. To that end: we need to pass
> information about wanting the command descriptor to contain the
> LOCK/UNLOCK flag (this is what we set here in the hardware descriptor)
> from the QCE driver to the BAM driver. I initially used a global flag.
> Dmitry said it's too Qualcomm-specific and to use metadata instead.
> This is what I did in this version.

Okay, how will client figure out should it set the lock or not? What are
the conditions where the lock is set or not set by client..?

-- 
~Vinod