linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] firmware: smccc: default ARM_SMCCC_SOC

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aWzuuwQi_nsHoj_5@bogus>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2026 14:31:23 +0000
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Trilok Soni <trilokkumar.soni@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: Satya Durga Srinivasu Prabhala <satya.prabhala@....qualcomm.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	trilok.soni@....qualcomm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: smccc: default ARM_SMCCC_SOC_ID to disabled

On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 03:53:57PM -0800, Trilok Soni wrote:
> 
> I believe that point(s) we have not touched upon are following:
> 
> There will be thousands of Android applications using the native interfaces
> in the playstore in various regions like US and China and so on, which relies
> on getting the SOC_ID to understand the product and enable / disable some features.
> 
> For example, benchmarks like GeekBench or Antutu may also be reading these
> interfaces.
> 
> There are apps. in certain regions which are still not updated from "32-bit"
> to 64-bit on Android yet as an example and there may be no way to reach out
> to those developers to fix but apps. are still used by many users.  
> 

Fair enough, but apps get updated on Android phones every day. So sorry if I
don’t consider this as something impossible. I do understand many apps are not
actively developed, yet that is no reason to say the wrong assumptions made by
these apps are correct.

> If we need to move all of these third-party applications to this new interface
> then we have to "break them" before we fix them. Do we want to have such approach?
> 

Sorry, which new interface are you referring to?
Are we still talking about /sys/devices/socX/?
If so, are you suggesting that X=0 and X=1 represent two different interfaces?
If that’s the case, I honestly have no words.

> We should not have enabled this feature as "default y" in the first place and should
> have kept it as "tristate" or kept it disabled in my opinion.
> 

Sorry, but how do you envision this working with a single defconfig? Please
consider the issues on platforms beyond the ones you’re focused on as well.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep