linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 2/7] fpga: sec-mgr: enable secure updates

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:   Thu, 19 Nov 2020 10:28:33 +0100
From:   Martin Hundebøll <mhu@...icom.dk>
To:     Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@...el.com>, mdf@...nel.org,
        linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     trix@...hat.com, lgoncalv@...hat.com, yilun.xu@...el.com,
        hao.wu@...el.com, matthew.gerlach@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/7] fpga: sec-mgr: enable secure updates

Hi Russ,

Just stumbled upon the below when preparing to upstream some Silicom changes

On 06/11/2020 02.09, Russ Weight wrote:

<snip>

> diff --git a/include/linux/fpga/fpga-sec-mgr.h b/include/linux/fpga/fpga-sec-mgr.h
> index f85665b79b9d..e03de72134d6 100644
> --- a/include/linux/fpga/fpga-sec-mgr.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fpga/fpga-sec-mgr.h
> @@ -7,16 +7,57 @@
>   #ifndef _LINUX_FPGA_SEC_MGR_H
>   #define _LINUX_FPGA_SEC_MGR_H
>   
> +#include <linux/completion.h>
>   #include <linux/device.h>
>   #include <linux/mutex.h>
>   #include <linux/types.h>
>   
>   struct fpga_sec_mgr;
>   
> +enum fpga_sec_err {
> +	FPGA_SEC_ERR_NONE,
> +	FPGA_SEC_ERR_HW_ERROR,
> +	FPGA_SEC_ERR_TIMEOUT,
> +	FPGA_SEC_ERR_CANCELED,
> +	FPGA_SEC_ERR_BUSY,
> +	FPGA_SEC_ERR_INVALID_SIZE,
> +	FPGA_SEC_ERR_RW_ERROR,
> +	FPGA_SEC_ERR_WEAROUT,
> +	FPGA_SEC_ERR_FILE_READ,
> +	FPGA_SEC_ERR_MAX
> +};

<snip>

> +
> +/* Update progress codes */
> +enum fpga_sec_prog {
> +	FPGA_SEC_PROG_IDLE,
> +	FPGA_SEC_PROG_READING,
> +	FPGA_SEC_PROG_PREPARING,
> +	FPGA_SEC_PROG_WRITING,
> +	FPGA_SEC_PROG_PROGRAMMING,
> +	FPGA_SEC_PROG_MAX
>   };

Shouldn't this enum and the fpga_sec_err above be indexed starting from 
0, to make comparison with FPGA_SEC_ERR_MAX and

FPGA_SEC_PROG_MAX correct?

// Martin