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  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:   Tue, 12 Jan 2021 08:11:48 -0800
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Cc:     Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org>,
        Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] soc: qcom: socinfo: Open read access to all for debugfs

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 6:04 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> Quoting Doug Anderson (2021-01-05 15:06:35)
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 11:19 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > There doesn't seem to be any reason to limit this to only root user
> > > readable. Let's make it readable by all so that random programs can
> > > read the debugfs files in here instead of just root. The information is
> > > just that, informational, so this is fine.
> > >
> > > Cc: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org>
> > > Cc: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
> > > Cc: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/soc/qcom/socinfo.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> > >  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >
> > One worry I'd have is whether there would ever be any PII (personally
> > identifiable information) here, like maybe a chip serial number.  If
> > so, is that something that is OK to provide to any random process?
> > ...maybe I'm just being paranoid though, since presumably there are
> > enough random HW characteristics that could be strung together and
> > hashed to make roughly a unique ID anyway and hiding every HW
> > characteristic would be a bit extreme...
> >
>
> I suppose if that's a problem then the process that mounts debugfs can
> change the access to restrict it. I'm not aware of this needing to be a
> kernel policy though, so I'd rather leave that up to userspace to decide
> if it should be restricted further.

OK, fair enough.

Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists