linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] rpmb subsystem, uapi and virtio-rpmb driver

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: <aeb64d1c4bbddfd8463c07a40ab1fc78be0d158d.camel@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 05 Apr 2022 19:03:18 +0200
From:   Bean Huo <huobean@...il.com>
To:     Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, maxim.uvarov@...aro.org,
        joakim.bech@...aro.org, ulf.hansson@...aro.org,
        ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org, arnd@...aro.org,
        ruchika.gupta@...aro.org, tomas.winkler@...el.com,
        yang.huang@...el.com, bing.zhu@...el.com,
        Matti.Moell@...nsynergy.com, hmo@...nsynergy.com,
        linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH  v2 0/4] rpmb subsystem, uapi and virtio-rpmb driver

On Tue, 2022-04-05 at 16:43 +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
> 
> Bean Huo <huobean@...il.com> writes:
> 
> > Hi Alex,
> > 
> > Thanks for this unified RPMB interface, I wanted to verify this on
> > our
> > UFS, it seems you didn't add the UFS access interface in this
> > version 
> > from your userspace tools, right?
> 
> No I didn't but it should be easy enough to add some function pointer
> redirection everywhere one of the op_* functions calls a vrpmb_*
> function. Do you already have a UFS RPMB device driver?
> 

Hi Alex,
Thanks for your feedback.

We now access UFS RPMB through the RPMB LUN BSG device, RPMB is a well-
known LU and we have a userspace tool to access it.

I see that if we're going to use your interface, "static struct
rpmb_ops" should be registered from a lower-level driver, for example
in a UFS driver, yes there should be no problem with this registration,
but I don't know with the current way Compared, what are the advantages
to add a driver. maybe the main advantage is that we will have an
unified user space tool for RPMB. right?

Kind regards,
Bean