linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v6 1/9] rpmb: add Replay Protected Memory Block (RPMB) subsystem

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:   Sat, 24 Sep 2016 20:30:49 +0000
From:   "Winkler, Tomas" <tomas.winkler@...el.com>
To:     Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@...disk.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        "Hunter, Adrian" <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Vinayak Holikatti <vinholikatti@...il.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Hj?nnev?g <arve@...roid.com>, "Michael Ryleev" <gmar@...gle.com>,
        Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>,
        "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@....de>,
        Yaniv Gardi <ygardi@...eaurora.org>,
        "Usyskin, Alexander" <alexander.usyskin@...el.com>,
        Avi Shchislowski <Avi.Shchislowski@...disk.com>,
        Alex Lemberg <Alex.Lemberg@...disk.com>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux- <mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v6 1/9] rpmb: add Replay Protected Memory Block (RPMB)
 subsystem

> 
> 
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@...el.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Usyskin <alexander.usyskin@...el.com>
> Tested-by: Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@...disk.com>
> 
> - mmc -  full functionality. One issue found that was fixed on V6: patch V6 2/9.
> - ufs - read & read counter only.  Testing is still wip.
> 
> 
> > +static int rpmb_request_verify(struct rpmb_dev *rdev, struct rpmb_data
> > +*rpmbd) {
> 
> Seems excessive - Isn't the standard should be enforced by the device?

Yes the device is responsible to detect the issues in the protocol. The rpmb_request_verify is called only for the managed interface (rpmb_cmd_req) the raw interface (rpm_cmd_seq) is going through.  Second,  we only check more or less if we can accommodate the request/response into the arguments.  If there is a specific issue  you see in this check, please let me know.

Thanks
Tomas