linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] crypto: add new driver for Marvell CESA

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]

Message-ID: <55312063.7050206@free-electrons.com>
Date:	Fri, 17 Apr 2015 17:01:55 +0200
From:	Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>
To:	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
CC:	Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	Arnaud Ebalard <arno@...isbad.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <info@...e-electrons.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Eran Ben-Avi <benavi@...vell.com>,
	Nadav Haklai <nadavh@...vell.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Tawfik Bayouk <tawfik@...vell.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Lior Amsalem <alior@...vell.com>,
	Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] crypto: add new driver for Marvell CESA

On 17/04/2015 16:50, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 04:40:43PM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
>> Hi Maxime,
>>
>> On 17/04/2015 16:32, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 04:19:22PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>>> Hi Gregory,
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 15:01:01 +0200
>>>> Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Boris,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 17/04/2015 10:39, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 10:33:56 +0200
>>>>>> Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Jason,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 20:11:46 +0000
>>>>>>> Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd appreciate if we'd look into it.  I understand from on-list and
>>>>>>>>>> off-list discussion that the rewrite was unavoidable.  So I'm willing to
>>>>>>>>>> concede that.  Giving people time to migrate from old to new while still
>>>>>>>>>> being able to update for other security fixes seems reasonable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jason, what do you think of the approach above? 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I say keep it simple.  We shouldn't use the DT changes to trigger one
>>>>>>>> vice the other.  We need to be able to build both, but only load one at
>>>>>>>> a time.  If that's anything other than simple to do, then we make it a
>>>>>>>> Kconfig binary choice and move on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually I was planning to handle it with a Kconfig dependency rule
>>>>>>> (NEW_DRIVER depends on !OLD_DRIVER and OLD_DRIVER depends
>>>>>>> on !NEW_DRIVER).
>>>>>>> I don't know how to make it a runtime check without adding new
>>>>>>> compatible strings for the kirkwood, dove and orion platforms, and I'm
>>>>>>> sure sure this is a good idea.
>>>>>>   ^ not
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you have any ideas ?
>>>>>
>>>>> You use devm_ioremap_resource() in the new driver, so if the old one
>>>>> is already loaded the memory region will be already hold and the new
>>>>> driver will simply fail during the probe. So for this part it is OK.
>>>>
>>>> I like the idea :-).
>>>
>>> Not really, how do you know which device is going to be probed? For
>>> that matter, it's pretty much random, and you have no control over it.
>>>
>>> Why not just have a choice option, and select which one you want to
>>> enable?
>>
>> Because you can't prevent an user to build a module, then modifying the
>> configuration and building the other module.
> 
> Well, actually, you don't even know if it's going to be a module. You
> might very well have both drivers compiled statically in the kernel
> image, and this is where the trouble begins.

No it won't be possible, Boris already speak about this issue (see below):
"Actually I was planning to handle it with a Kconfig dependency rule
(NEW_DRIVER depends on !OLD_DRIVER and OLD_DRIVER depends
on !NEW_DRIVER)."

> 
>> So even if there is a choice at build time, and I think that it is
>> something expected for the v2, we still need preventing having the
>> both drivers trying accessing the same hardware in the same time.
> 
> Of course, but this is already there, and doesn't really address the
> same issue.

This was the only issue remaining, (see below again):
"I don't know how to make it a runtime check ". And my last emails
was bout it.

Gregory


> 
> Maxime
> 


-- 
Gregory Clement, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com
--
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/