linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] rpmb: add Replay Protected Memory Block (RPMB) subsystem

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: <87ilrmjw38.fsf@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 06 Apr 2022 12:21:15 +0100
From:   Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@...aro.org>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....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,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd.bergmann@...aro.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] rpmb: add Replay Protected Memory Block (RPMB)
 subsystem


Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org> writes:

> On 4/5/22 02:37, Alex Bennée wrote:
>> +int rpmb_get_write_count(struct rpmb_dev *rdev, int len, u8 *request, int rlen, u8 *resp)
>> +{
>> +	int err;
>> +
>> +	if (!rdev)
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> +	mutex_lock(&rdev->lock);
>> +	err = -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> +	if (rdev->ops && rdev->ops->get_write_count)
>> +		err = rdev->ops->get_write_count(rdev->dev.parent, rdev->target,
>> +						 len, request, rlen, resp);
>> +	mutex_unlock(&rdev->lock);
>> +
>> +	return err;
>> +}
>
> The names rpmb_get_write_count() and get_write_count() look confusing
> to me since these functions query the write counter. How about adding
> "er" at the end of both function names?
>
> Are there any plans to add an implementation of struct rpmb_ops for
> UFS devices?

Not by me but I agree it would be a useful exercise to see if a unified
API makes sense.

-- 
Alex Bennée