linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] spmi: pmic-arb: Enforce the ownership check optionally

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: <e0af96c3-208b-abfc-8b2a-4ea1cc810ec7@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Mon, 21 Aug 2017 16:18:58 -0700
From:   Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To:     Kiran Gunda <kgunda@...eaurora.org>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Abhijeet Dharmapurikar <adharmap@...eaurora.org>,
        David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     shawnguo@...nel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] spmi: pmic-arb: Enforce the ownership check optionally

On 08/18/2017 08:28 AM, Kiran Gunda wrote:
> The peripheral ownership check is not necessary on single master
> platforms. Hence, enforce the peripheral ownership check optionally.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kiran Gunda <kgunda@...eaurora.org>
> Tested-by: Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>
> ---

This sounds like a band-aid. Isn't the gpio driver going to keep probing
all the pins that are not supposed to be accessed due to security
constraints? What exactly is failing in the gpio case?

Also, I thought we were getting rid of the ownership checks? Or at
least, putting them behind some debug kernel feature check or something?

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project