linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] powerpc/powernv: Add OPAL API interface to get secureboot state

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]

Message-ID: <87tvcp2iga.fsf@dja-thinkpad.axtens.net>
Date:   Mon, 17 Jun 2019 09:56:05 +1000
From:   Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>
To:     Nayna <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
        linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Jeremy Kerr <jk@...abs.org>,
        Matthew Garret <matthew.garret@...ula.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Claudio Carvalho <cclaudio@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Eric Richter <erichte@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] powerpc/powernv: Add OPAL API interface to get secureboot state

Hi Nayna,

>> I guess I also somewhat object to calling it a 'backend' if we're using
>> it as a version scheme. I think the skiboot storage backends are true
>> backends - they provide different implementations of the same
>> functionality with the same API, but this seems like you're using it to
>> indicate different functionality. It seems like we're using it as if it
>> were called OPAL_SECVAR_VERSION.
>
> We are changing how we are exposing the version to the kernel. The 
> version will be exposed as device-tree entry rather than a OPAL runtime 
> service. We are not tied to the name "backend", we can switch to calling 
> it as "scheme" unless there is a better name.

This sounds like a good approach to me.

Kind regards,
Daniel

>
> Thanks & Regards,
>        - Nayna