* Re: [PATCH 2/2] firmware: qcom: scm: fall back to kcalloc() for no SCM device bound
2024-09-09 18:38 ` [PATCH 2/2] firmware: qcom: scm: fall back to kcalloc() for no SCM device bound Bartosz Golaszewski
@ 2024-09-09 20:10 ` Konrad Dybcio
2024-09-09 21:04 ` Elliot Berman
2024-09-10 6:46 ` Rudraksha Gupta
2 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Konrad Dybcio @ 2024-09-09 20:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bartosz Golaszewski, Bjorn Andersson, Konrad Dybcio,
Andrew Halaney, Elliot Berman, Dmitry Baryshkov, Rudraksha Gupta,
Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)
Cc: linux-arm-msm, linux-kernel, Bartosz Golaszewski
On 9.09.2024 8:38 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
>
> Older platforms don't have an actual SCM device tied into the driver
> model and so there's no struct device which to use with the TZ Mem API.
> We need to fall-back to kcalloc() when allocating the buffer for
> additional SMC arguments on such platforms which don't even probe the SCM
> driver and never create the TZMem pool.
>
> Fixes: 449d0d84bcd8 ("firmware: qcom: scm: smc: switch to using the SCM allocator")
> Reported-by: Rudraksha Gupta <guptarud@gmail.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/692cfe9a-8c05-4ce4-813e-82b3f310019a@gmail.com/<S-Del>
> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
> ---
Considering all SoCs that would be allowed on a roller coaster by age now
are supposed not to need this patch.. perhaps this isn't a hot enough
path for static branches, but I'd say some likely() hints could be used
here..
Konrad
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 2/2] firmware: qcom: scm: fall back to kcalloc() for no SCM device bound
2024-09-09 18:38 ` [PATCH 2/2] firmware: qcom: scm: fall back to kcalloc() for no SCM device bound Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-09-09 20:10 ` Konrad Dybcio
@ 2024-09-09 21:04 ` Elliot Berman
2024-09-10 8:37 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-09-10 11:06 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2024-09-10 6:46 ` Rudraksha Gupta
2 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Elliot Berman @ 2024-09-09 21:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bartosz Golaszewski
Cc: Bjorn Andersson, Konrad Dybcio, Andrew Halaney, Dmitry Baryshkov,
Rudraksha Gupta, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis),
linux-arm-msm, linux-kernel, Bartosz Golaszewski
On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 08:38:45PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
>
> Older platforms don't have an actual SCM device tied into the driver
> model and so there's no struct device which to use with the TZ Mem API.
> We need to fall-back to kcalloc() when allocating the buffer for
> additional SMC arguments on such platforms which don't even probe the SCM
> driver and never create the TZMem pool.
>
> Fixes: 449d0d84bcd8 ("firmware: qcom: scm: smc: switch to using the SCM allocator")
> Reported-by: Rudraksha Gupta <guptarud@gmail.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/692cfe9a-8c05-4ce4-813e-82b3f310019a@gmail.com/<S-Del>
> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
> ---
> drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm-smc.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm-smc.c b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm-smc.c
> index 2b4c2826f572..13f72541033c 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm-smc.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm-smc.c
> @@ -147,6 +147,15 @@ static int __scm_smc_do(struct device *dev, struct arm_smccc_args *smc,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static void smc_args_free(void *ptr)
> +{
> + if (qcom_scm_get_tzmem_pool())
I'm a little concerned about this check. I didn't think making SCM calls
without the SCM device probed was possible until this report. We do
worry about that in the downstream kernel. So, I'm not sure if this
scenario is currently possible in the upstream kernel.
It's possible that some driver makes SCM call in parallel to SCM device
probing. Then, it might be possible for qcom_scm_get_tzmem_pool() to
return NULL at beginning of function and then a valid pointer by the
time we're freeing the ptr.
- Elliot
> + qcom_tzmem_free(ptr);
> + else
> + kfree(ptr);
> +}
> +
> +DEFINE_FREE(smc_args, void *, if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(_T)) smc_args_free(_T));
>
> int __scm_smc_call(struct device *dev, const struct qcom_scm_desc *desc,
> enum qcom_scm_convention qcom_convention,
> @@ -155,7 +164,7 @@ int __scm_smc_call(struct device *dev, const struct qcom_scm_desc *desc,
> struct qcom_tzmem_pool *mempool = qcom_scm_get_tzmem_pool();
> int arglen = desc->arginfo & 0xf;
> int i, ret;
> - void *args_virt __free(qcom_tzmem) = NULL;
> + void *args_virt __free(smc_args) = NULL;
> gfp_t flag = atomic ? GFP_ATOMIC : GFP_KERNEL;
> u32 smccc_call_type = atomic ? ARM_SMCCC_FAST_CALL : ARM_SMCCC_STD_CALL;
> u32 qcom_smccc_convention = (qcom_convention == SMC_CONVENTION_ARM_32) ?
> @@ -173,9 +182,20 @@ int __scm_smc_call(struct device *dev, const struct qcom_scm_desc *desc,
> smc.args[i + SCM_SMC_FIRST_REG_IDX] = desc->args[i];
>
> if (unlikely(arglen > SCM_SMC_N_REG_ARGS)) {
> - args_virt = qcom_tzmem_alloc(mempool,
> - SCM_SMC_N_EXT_ARGS * sizeof(u64),
> - flag);
> + /*
> + * Older platforms don't have an entry for SCM in device-tree
> + * and so no device is bound to the SCM driver. This means there
> + * is no struct device for the TZ Mem API. Fall back to
> + * kcalloc() on such platforms.
> + */
> + if (mempool)
> + args_virt = qcom_tzmem_alloc(
> + mempool,
> + SCM_SMC_N_EXT_ARGS * sizeof(u64),
> + flag);
> + else
> + args_virt = kcalloc(SCM_SMC_N_EXT_ARGS, sizeof(u64),
> + flag);
> if (!args_virt)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
>
> --
> 2.43.0
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 2/2] firmware: qcom: scm: fall back to kcalloc() for no SCM device bound
2024-09-09 21:04 ` Elliot Berman
@ 2024-09-10 8:37 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-09-10 11:06 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Bartosz Golaszewski @ 2024-09-10 8:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Elliot Berman
Cc: Bjorn Andersson, Konrad Dybcio, Andrew Halaney, Dmitry Baryshkov,
Rudraksha Gupta, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis),
linux-arm-msm, linux-kernel, Bartosz Golaszewski
On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 11:04 PM Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@quicinc.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 08:38:45PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
> >
> > Older platforms don't have an actual SCM device tied into the driver
> > model and so there's no struct device which to use with the TZ Mem API.
> > We need to fall-back to kcalloc() when allocating the buffer for
> > additional SMC arguments on such platforms which don't even probe the SCM
> > driver and never create the TZMem pool.
> >
> > Fixes: 449d0d84bcd8 ("firmware: qcom: scm: smc: switch to using the SCM allocator")
> > Reported-by: Rudraksha Gupta <guptarud@gmail.com>
> > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/692cfe9a-8c05-4ce4-813e-82b3f310019a@gmail.com/<S-Del>
> > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm-smc.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm-smc.c b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm-smc.c
> > index 2b4c2826f572..13f72541033c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm-smc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm-smc.c
> > @@ -147,6 +147,15 @@ static int __scm_smc_do(struct device *dev, struct arm_smccc_args *smc,
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +static void smc_args_free(void *ptr)
> > +{
> > + if (qcom_scm_get_tzmem_pool())
>
> I'm a little concerned about this check. I didn't think making SCM calls
> without the SCM device probed was possible until this report. We do
> worry about that in the downstream kernel. So, I'm not sure if this
> scenario is currently possible in the upstream kernel.
I didn't know about this either. And I think this should be fixed.
That being said: qcom-msm8960.dtsi doesn't have any SCM node and
there's no such compatible in the driver so it looks real.
Also: some of the calls seem to be ready for this and they check
whether __scm is set and use a NULL struct device pointer if not.
>
> It's possible that some driver makes SCM call in parallel to SCM device
> probing. Then, it might be possible for qcom_scm_get_tzmem_pool() to
> return NULL at beginning of function and then a valid pointer by the
> time we're freeing the ptr.
>
I thought the SCM module is initialized at subsys_initcall() exactly
for that reason? Because if the above can happen then we have more
problems than just that. What if we enable SHM bridge during probe?
I'm not even sure what would happen to SCM calls in progress that were
passed regular buffers before.
I think the SCM driver should be improved and not allow calls until it's probed.
Bart
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 2/2] firmware: qcom: scm: fall back to kcalloc() for no SCM device bound
2024-09-09 21:04 ` Elliot Berman
2024-09-10 8:37 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
@ 2024-09-10 11:06 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2024-09-11 11:41 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Dmitry Baryshkov @ 2024-09-10 11:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Elliot Berman
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski, Bjorn Andersson, Konrad Dybcio,
Andrew Halaney, Rudraksha Gupta,
Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis), linux-arm-msm,
linux-kernel, Bartosz Golaszewski
On Tue, 10 Sept 2024 at 00:04, Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@quicinc.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 08:38:45PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
> >
> > Older platforms don't have an actual SCM device tied into the driver
> > model and so there's no struct device which to use with the TZ Mem API.
> > We need to fall-back to kcalloc() when allocating the buffer for
> > additional SMC arguments on such platforms which don't even probe the SCM
> > driver and never create the TZMem pool.
> >
> > Fixes: 449d0d84bcd8 ("firmware: qcom: scm: smc: switch to using the SCM allocator")
> > Reported-by: Rudraksha Gupta <guptarud@gmail.com>
> > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/692cfe9a-8c05-4ce4-813e-82b3f310019a@gmail.com/<S-Del>
> > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm-smc.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm-smc.c b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm-smc.c
> > index 2b4c2826f572..13f72541033c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm-smc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm-smc.c
> > @@ -147,6 +147,15 @@ static int __scm_smc_do(struct device *dev, struct arm_smccc_args *smc,
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +static void smc_args_free(void *ptr)
> > +{
> > + if (qcom_scm_get_tzmem_pool())
>
> I'm a little concerned about this check. I didn't think making SCM calls
> without the SCM device probed was possible until this report. We do
> worry about that in the downstream kernel. So, I'm not sure if this
> scenario is currently possible in the upstream kernel.
MSM8960 and MSM8660 don't have SCM devices. For MSM8960 it should be
trivial to get it, c&p from apq8064 should. For MSM8660 it might be a
bit harder. But even if we add such nodes, we shouldn't break existing
DT files.
> It's possible that some driver makes SCM call in parallel to SCM device
> probing. Then, it might be possible for qcom_scm_get_tzmem_pool() to
> return NULL at beginning of function and then a valid pointer by the
> time we're freeing the ptr.
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 2/2] firmware: qcom: scm: fall back to kcalloc() for no SCM device bound
2024-09-10 11:06 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
@ 2024-09-11 11:41 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-09-11 11:55 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2024-09-11 18:01 ` Rudraksha Gupta
0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Bartosz Golaszewski @ 2024-09-11 11:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dmitry Baryshkov
Cc: Elliot Berman, Bjorn Andersson, Konrad Dybcio, Andrew Halaney,
Rudraksha Gupta, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis),
linux-arm-msm, linux-kernel, Bartosz Golaszewski
On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 1:06 PM Dmitry Baryshkov
<dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm a little concerned about this check. I didn't think making SCM calls
> > without the SCM device probed was possible until this report. We do
> > worry about that in the downstream kernel. So, I'm not sure if this
> > scenario is currently possible in the upstream kernel.
>
> MSM8960 and MSM8660 don't have SCM devices. For MSM8960 it should be
> trivial to get it, c&p from apq8064 should. For MSM8660 it might be a
> bit harder. But even if we add such nodes, we shouldn't break existing
> DT files.
>
I'm wondering about how to approach an eventual refactoring and I'm
thinking that for platforms that are known to have DTs out there
without the node, we could exceptionally instantiate the SCM device
when the module is loaded? And then modify the driver to require the
provider to have an actual struct device attached.
Bart
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] firmware: qcom: scm: fall back to kcalloc() for no SCM device bound
2024-09-11 11:41 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
@ 2024-09-11 11:55 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2024-09-11 18:01 ` Rudraksha Gupta
1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Dmitry Baryshkov @ 2024-09-11 11:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bartosz Golaszewski
Cc: Elliot Berman, Bjorn Andersson, Konrad Dybcio, Andrew Halaney,
Rudraksha Gupta, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis),
linux-arm-msm, linux-kernel, Bartosz Golaszewski
On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 01:41:58PM GMT, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 1:06 PM Dmitry Baryshkov
> <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I'm a little concerned about this check. I didn't think making SCM calls
> > > without the SCM device probed was possible until this report. We do
> > > worry about that in the downstream kernel. So, I'm not sure if this
> > > scenario is currently possible in the upstream kernel.
> >
> > MSM8960 and MSM8660 don't have SCM devices. For MSM8960 it should be
> > trivial to get it, c&p from apq8064 should. For MSM8660 it might be a
> > bit harder. But even if we add such nodes, we shouldn't break existing
> > DT files.
> >
>
> I'm wondering about how to approach an eventual refactoring and I'm
> thinking that for platforms that are known to have DTs out there
> without the node, we could exceptionally instantiate the SCM device
> when the module is loaded? And then modify the driver to require the
> provider to have an actual struct device attached.
Might make sense. We should be able to test in on APQ8060 = MSM8660.
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] firmware: qcom: scm: fall back to kcalloc() for no SCM device bound
2024-09-11 11:41 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-09-11 11:55 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
@ 2024-09-11 18:01 ` Rudraksha Gupta
2024-09-11 19:44 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Rudraksha Gupta @ 2024-09-11 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bartosz Golaszewski, Dmitry Baryshkov
Cc: Elliot Berman, Bjorn Andersson, Konrad Dybcio, Andrew Halaney,
Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis), linux-arm-msm,
linux-kernel, Bartosz Golaszewski
> I'm wondering about how to approach an eventual refactoring and I'm
> thinking that for platforms that are known to have DTs out there
> without the node, we could exceptionally instantiate the SCM device
> when the module is loaded? And then modify the driver to require the
> provider to have an actual struct device attached.
I'm happy to help test these changes if you'd like!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] firmware: qcom: scm: fall back to kcalloc() for no SCM device bound
2024-09-11 18:01 ` Rudraksha Gupta
@ 2024-09-11 19:44 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Bartosz Golaszewski @ 2024-09-11 19:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rudraksha Gupta
Cc: Dmitry Baryshkov, Elliot Berman, Bjorn Andersson, Konrad Dybcio,
Andrew Halaney, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis),
linux-arm-msm, linux-kernel, Bartosz Golaszewski
On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 8:01 PM Rudraksha Gupta <guptarud@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm wondering about how to approach an eventual refactoring and I'm
> > thinking that for platforms that are known to have DTs out there
> > without the node, we could exceptionally instantiate the SCM device
> > when the module is loaded? And then modify the driver to require the
> > provider to have an actual struct device attached.
>
>
> I'm happy to help test these changes if you'd like!
>
Thanks! In any case, this series should still be merged to not break
existing users (even if the kcalloc() fallback will be removed once we
do the refactoring).
Bart
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] firmware: qcom: scm: fall back to kcalloc() for no SCM device bound
2024-09-09 18:38 ` [PATCH 2/2] firmware: qcom: scm: fall back to kcalloc() for no SCM device bound Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-09-09 20:10 ` Konrad Dybcio
2024-09-09 21:04 ` Elliot Berman
@ 2024-09-10 6:46 ` Rudraksha Gupta
2 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Rudraksha Gupta @ 2024-09-10 6:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bartosz Golaszewski, Bjorn Andersson, Konrad Dybcio,
Andrew Halaney, Elliot Berman, Dmitry Baryshkov,
Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)
Cc: linux-arm-msm, linux-kernel, Bartosz Golaszewski
On 9/9/24 11:38, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
>
> Older platforms don't have an actual SCM device tied into the driver
> model and so there's no struct device which to use with the TZ Mem API.
> We need to fall-back to kcalloc() when allocating the buffer for
> additional SMC arguments on such platforms which don't even probe the SCM
> driver and never create the TZMem pool.
>
> Fixes: 449d0d84bcd8 ("firmware: qcom: scm: smc: switch to using the SCM allocator")
> Reported-by: Rudraksha Gupta <guptarud@gmail.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/692cfe9a-8c05-4ce4-813e-82b3f310019a@gmail.com/<S-Del>
> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
> ---
> drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm-smc.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm-smc.c b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm-smc.c
> index 2b4c2826f572..13f72541033c 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm-smc.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm-smc.c
> @@ -147,6 +147,15 @@ static int __scm_smc_do(struct device *dev, struct arm_smccc_args *smc,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static void smc_args_free(void *ptr)
> +{
> + if (qcom_scm_get_tzmem_pool())
> + qcom_tzmem_free(ptr);
> + else
> + kfree(ptr);
> +}
> +
> +DEFINE_FREE(smc_args, void *, if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(_T)) smc_args_free(_T));
>
> int __scm_smc_call(struct device *dev, const struct qcom_scm_desc *desc,
> enum qcom_scm_convention qcom_convention,
> @@ -155,7 +164,7 @@ int __scm_smc_call(struct device *dev, const struct qcom_scm_desc *desc,
> struct qcom_tzmem_pool *mempool = qcom_scm_get_tzmem_pool();
> int arglen = desc->arginfo & 0xf;
> int i, ret;
> - void *args_virt __free(qcom_tzmem) = NULL;
> + void *args_virt __free(smc_args) = NULL;
> gfp_t flag = atomic ? GFP_ATOMIC : GFP_KERNEL;
> u32 smccc_call_type = atomic ? ARM_SMCCC_FAST_CALL : ARM_SMCCC_STD_CALL;
> u32 qcom_smccc_convention = (qcom_convention == SMC_CONVENTION_ARM_32) ?
> @@ -173,9 +182,20 @@ int __scm_smc_call(struct device *dev, const struct qcom_scm_desc *desc,
> smc.args[i + SCM_SMC_FIRST_REG_IDX] = desc->args[i];
>
> if (unlikely(arglen > SCM_SMC_N_REG_ARGS)) {
> - args_virt = qcom_tzmem_alloc(mempool,
> - SCM_SMC_N_EXT_ARGS * sizeof(u64),
> - flag);
> + /*
> + * Older platforms don't have an entry for SCM in device-tree
> + * and so no device is bound to the SCM driver. This means there
> + * is no struct device for the TZ Mem API. Fall back to
> + * kcalloc() on such platforms.
> + */
> + if (mempool)
> + args_virt = qcom_tzmem_alloc(
> + mempool,
> + SCM_SMC_N_EXT_ARGS * sizeof(u64),
> + flag);
> + else
> + args_virt = kcalloc(SCM_SMC_N_EXT_ARGS, sizeof(u64),
> + flag);
> if (!args_virt)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
>
Tested-by: Rudraksha Gupta <guptarud@gmail.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread