linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] ARM: add basic Trusted Foundations 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 2 Sep 2013 16:28:36 +0900
From:	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>
To:	Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>
Cc:	Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] ARM: add basic Trusted Foundations support

Hi Tomasz!

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com> wrote:
>> +Required properties:
>> +- compatible : "tl,trusted-foundations"
>> +- version-major : major version number of Trusted Foundations firmware
>> +- version-minor: minor version number of Trusted Foundations firmware
>
> Hmm, maybe you could simply define a single version property that could
> have multiple cells? Like:
>
>         firmware {
>                 compatible = "tl,trusted-foundations";
>                 version = <2 8>;
>         };

I'm fine this way too, but do we have other bindings that use the same
scheme? What is the general convention for version number bindings?

>> +       This option allows the kernel to invoke the secure monitor
> whenever
>> +       required on devices using Trusted Foundations.
>> +
>> +       Devices using Trusted Foundations should pass a device tree
>> containing +    a node compatible with "tl,trusted-foundations" to
>> signal the presence +   of the secure monitor.
>
> What about pointing to the documentation file instead?

Yes, that would make more sense.

>> +void of_register_trusted_foundations(void)
>> +{
>> +     struct device_node *node;
>> +
>> +     node = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "tl,trusted-
> foundations");
>
> nit:
>         if (!node)
>                 return;

Fixed, thanks.

>> +static inline void register_trusted_foundations(
>> +                                struct
> trusted_foundations_platform_data *pd)
>> +{
>> +     pr_crit("No support for Trusted Foundations, stopping...\n");
>> +     BUG();
>
> Hmm, why not simply panic()?

Fixed that too.

Thanks for the review!
Alex.
--
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/