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]

Date:   Wed, 06 Apr 2022 12:22:00 +0100
From:   Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@...aro.org>
To:     Bean Huo <huobean@...il.com>
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


Bean Huo <huobean@...il.com> writes:

> 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?

Pretty much. The main issue for virtio-rpmb is it doesn't really fit
neatly into the block stack because all it does is the RPMB part so a
non-block orientate API makes sense.

Can you point be to where the UFS driver does it's current RPMB stuff?

>
> Kind regards,
> Bean


-- 
Alex Bennée