linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] SPI LPC information kernel module

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]

Date:   Tue, 30 Jun 2020 14:57:11 +0100
From:   Richard Hughes <hughsient@...il.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Daniel Gutson <daniel.gutson@...ypsium.com>,
        Derek Kiernan <derek.kiernan@...inx.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alex Bazhaniuk <alex@...ypsium.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SPI LPC information kernel module

On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 09:56, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Again, which makes it seem like securityfs is not the thing for this, as
> it describes the hardware, not a security model which is what securityfs
> has been for in the past, right?

It describes the hardware platform. From a fwupd perspective I don't
mind if the BC attributes are read from securityfs, sysfs or even read
from an offset in a file from /proc... I guess sysfs makes sense if
securityfs is defined for things like the LSM or lockdown status,
although I also thought sysfs was for devices *in* the platform, not
the platform itself. I guess exposing the platform registers in sysfs
is no more weird than exposing things like the mei device and rfkill.

Richard