linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] pinctrl: qcom: Don't allow protected pins to be requested

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:53:54 -0600
From:   Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] pinctrl: qcom: Don't allow protected pins to be
 requested

On 01/25/2018 03:51 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Sorry I don't get it. Is that some sort of hardening requirement?
> If the framework doesn't cause those pins to be touched I fail to
> see how it could hurt to have the other addresses listed. I'm
> sure with some effort protected addresses could be crafted in
> other ways to cause an XPU violation to the same place.

It's for my own sanity.  By ensuring that those physical addresses are 
not ever present in the driver or any data structure, I can fend off, 
"Hey Timur, your gpio driver is causing XPU violations again, heh heh".

-- 
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc.  Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.