linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARM: tegra: add basic SecureOS support

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:	Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:35:57 -0600
From:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC:	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
	"devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org" 
	<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	Chris Johnson <CJohnson@...dia.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Varun Wadekar <vwadekar@...dia.com>,
	Karan Jhavar <kjhavar@...dia.com>,
	Matthew Longnecker <MLongnecker@...dia.com>,
	Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>,
	Joseph Lo <josephl@...dia.com>,
	"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: tegra: add basic SecureOS support

On 06/10/2013 03:14 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 05:11:15PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> wrote:
>>>>> I think we need to separate the concept of support for *a* secure
>>>>> monitor, from support for a *particular* secure monitor.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. In this case, can we assume that support for a specific secure
>>>> monitor is not arch-specific, and that this patch should be moved
>>>> outside of arch-tegra and down to arch/arm? In other words, the ABI of
>>>> a particular secure monitor should be the same no matter the chip,
>>>> shouldn't it?
>>>
>>> I would like to believe that the Trusted Foundations monitor had the
>>> same ABI irrespective of which Soc it was running on. However, I have
>>> absolutely no idea at all if that's true. Even if there's some common
>>> subset of the ABI that is identical across all SoCs, I wouldn't be too
>>> surprised if there were custom extensions for each different SoC, or
>>> just perhaps even each product.
>>>
>>> Can you research this and find out the answer?
>>
>> Will do. Information about TF is scarce unfortunately.
> 
> The answer is... there isn't a common ABI.  That is something I pressed
> ARM Ltd for when this stuff first appeared and they were adamant that
> they were not going to specify any kind of ABI for this interface.

Right, there certainly isn't a common ABI across all secure monitors,
but in this case I was wondering something more specific: whether for
this specific implementation/provider of a secure monitor, if they had a
consistent ABI across all SoCs (or even boards) that they implemented it on.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/