linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/19] [RESEND] Remove STiH415 and STiH416 SoC platform 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <10792443.jxCOopyCy4@wuerfel>
Date:   Thu, 15 Sep 2016 14:00:36 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Peter Griffin <peter.griffin@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel@...inux.com, patrice.chotard@...com,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, lee.jones@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/19] [RESEND] Remove STiH415 and STiH416 SoC platform support

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 8:01:39 AM CEST Peter Griffin wrote:
> 
> STiH415 I'm sure never shipped. I'm reasonably sure STiH416 didn't
> either. These SoCs were considered legacy even when I was at ST
> ~3 years ago.
> 
> Also remember these are STB SoC's, so JTAG fuses are blown in
> production boxes, and also full security is enabled. This means the
> primary bootloader will only boot a signed kernel. So if a end user
> did happen to have a box they would be unable to upgrade their kernel.
> 
> From the landing team perspective they were interesting in that they
> shared many IPs with the STiH407 family on which future chipsets were
> based, and were available to us when that silicon was harder to get
> hold of. So we used it as a vehicle for upstreaming so that upstream
> support was already quite good when STiH407 silicon did land on our
> desk.

Ok, makes sense. I did stumble over one machine basedon STiH412
the other day [1], but there probably isn't much shared with that
one. Since this a NAS server rather than an STB box, it's probably
less locked-down and potentially a target for OpenWRT or similar.

	Arnd

[1] http://www.heise.de/preisvergleich/synology-diskstation-ds216play-16tb-a1400885.html