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  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]
Date:   Mon, 24 Feb 2020 15:37:59 -0800
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>
Cc:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Satya Tangirala <satyat@...gle.com>,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        Barani Muthukumaran <bmuthuku@....qualcomm.com>,
        Kuohong Wang <kuohong.wang@...iatek.com>,
        Kim Boojin <boojin.kim@...sung.com>,
        Ladvine D Almeida <Ladvine.DAlmeida@...opsys.com>,
        Parshuram Raju Thombare <pthombar@...ence.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 6/9] scsi: ufs: Add inline encryption support to UFS

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 09:47:36PM +0800, Stanley Chu wrote:
> Yes, MediaTek is keeping work closely with inline encryption patch sets.
> Currently the v6 version can work well (without
> UFSHCD_QUIRK_BROKEN_CRYPTO quirk) at least in our MT6779 SoC platform
> which basic SoC support and some other peripheral drivers are under
> upstreaming as below link,
> 
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mediatek/list/?state=%
> 2A&q=6779&series=&submitter=&delegate=&archive=both
> 
> The integration with inline encryption patch set needs to patch
> ufs-mediatek and patches are ready in downstream. We plan to upstream
> them soon after inline encryption patch sets get merged.

What amount of support do you need in ufs-mediatek?  It seems like
pretty much every ufs low-level driver needs some kind of specific
support now, right?  I wonder if we should instead opt into the support
instead of all the quirking here.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists