From: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@kernel.org>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Cc: linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com>,
Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 6/7] firmware: smccc: arm-cca-guest: Bind the TSM provider to an SMCCC device
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2026 13:07:18 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <yq5atsnyeuz5.fsf@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <178855077571.693280.17942746234757215326.b4-review@b4>
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> writes:
>> [ ... 42 lines skipped ... ]
>> @@ -94,6 +95,11 @@ static const struct smccc_device_info smccc_devices[] __initconst = {
>> .requires_smc = false,
>> .device_name = "arm-smccc-trng",
>> },
>> + {
>> + .func_id = SMC_RSI_ABI_VERSION,
>> + .requires_smc = true,
>> + .device_name = "arm-rsi",
>> + },
>> };
>>
>> static bool __init smccc_probe_smccc_device(const struct smccc_device_info *smccc_dev)
>
> [Severity: High]
> When this new entry is probed by smccc_probe_smccc_device(), does
> arm_smccc_1_1_invoke() pass uninitialized registers to the firmware?
>
> Looking at smccc_probe_smccc_device() during system initialization:
>
> drivers/firmware/smccc/smccc.c:smccc_probe_smccc_device() {
> ...
> arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(smccc_dev->func_id, &res);
> ...
> }
>
> Since arm_smccc_1_1_invoke() is a variadic macro, providing only the func_id
> leaves x1/r1 uninitialized in the SMC inline assembly.
>
> For SMC_RSI_ABI_VERSION, the RMM uses x1 as the requested interface revision
> to determine supported revisions.
>
> Could this pass a garbage requested interface revision to the RMM,
> potentially causing probe failures or returning an unsupported boundary?
>
> Could this also leak kernel register state to EL2?
>
> Sashiko still has this to say, I think it should pass 0 as the x1
> 'requested version' instead of unpredictable garbage.
>
To handle
> Could this also leak kernel register state to EL2?
>
Should we instead do
arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(smccc_dev->func_id,
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, &res);
ret = res.a0;
There is no standard defining how the various SMCCC VERSION calls are
expected to work. For example, ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_VERSION does not use x1,
while SMC_RSI_ABI_VERSION does. Another VERSION call could use both x1
and x2. The only consistent behavior is to return
SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED when the SMCCC function ID is not supported.
-aneesh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-09 7:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-04 9:49 [PATCH v10 0/7] Switch Arm SMCCC firmware services to an SMCCC bus Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
2026-09-04 9:49 ` [PATCH v10 1/7] firmware: smccc: Add an Arm " Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
2026-09-04 19:39 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-04 9:49 ` [PATCH v10 2/7] firmware: hwrng: arm_smccc_trng: Register as an SMCCC device Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
2026-09-04 19:39 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-04 9:49 ` [PATCH v10 3/7] firmware: arm_rmm: Move RSI support out of arch/arm64 Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
2026-09-04 19:39 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-04 9:49 ` [PATCH v10 4/7] arm64: realm: Move Realm memory encryption ops to RSI code Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
2026-09-04 19:39 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-04 9:49 ` [PATCH v10 5/7] virt: coco: arm-cca-guest: Rename TSM report source file Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
2026-09-04 19:39 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-04 9:49 ` [PATCH v10 6/7] firmware: smccc: arm-cca-guest: Bind the TSM provider to an SMCCC device Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
2026-09-04 19:39 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-09 7:37 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V [this message]
2026-09-09 12:05 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-04 9:50 ` [PATCH v10 7/7] coco: guest: arm64: Replace dummy CCA device with sysfs ABI Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
2026-09-04 19:39 ` Jason Gunthorpe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=yq5atsnyeuz5.fsf@kernel.org \
--to=aneesh.kumar@kernel.org \
--cc=Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com \
--cc=andre.przywara@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jeremy.linton@arm.com \
--cc=jgg@nvidia.com \
--cc=jic23@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-coco@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lpieralisi@kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=steven.price@arm.com \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox