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: <310d20a04bdaf40672592d9ffa950606d2ceaff7.camel@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 06 Apr 2022 20:12:07 +0200
From:   Bean Huo <huobean@...il.com>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        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 Wed, 2022-04-06 at 10:32 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > It's the SCSI BSG driver, in fact, we don't have a dedicated UFS
> > RPMB
> > driver in the kernel. RPMB is a well known LU, we are using
> > userspace
> > tools to issue SCSI commands directly to the UFS RPMB LU via
> > ioctl()
> > from the BSG device node in the /dev/sg/ folder.
> > 
> > Here is the BSG part of the code in the userspace tools:
> > 
> >           io_hdr_v4.guard = 'Q';
> >           io_hdr_v4.protocol = BSG_PROTOCOL_SCSI;
> >           io_hdr_v4.subprotocol = BSG_SUB_PROTOCOL_SCSI_CMD;
> >           io_hdr_v4.response = (__u64)sense_buffer;
> >           io_hdr_v4.max_response_len = SENSE_BUFF_LEN;
> >           io_hdr_v4.request_len = cmd_len;
> >           io_hdr_v4.request = (__u64)cdb;
> >                                                                    
> >                                                          
> >                                                                    
> >                 
> >           ioctl(fd, SG_IO, &io_hdr_v4))
> 
> Hi Bean,
> 
> I'm not sure where the above comes from? The Android RPMB client uses
> slightly different code. Additionally, the retry loop around the 
> submission of SG/IO commands is very important. See also the 
> check_sg_io_hdr() call in send_ufs_rpmb_req(). See also 
> https://cs.android.com/android/platform/superproject/+/master:system/core/trusty/storage/proxy/rpmb.c
> 
> 
Bart,

It is from the ufs-utils.

So, do you vote to add the UFS RPMB driver based on this new framework
to resolve this conflict?


Kind regards,
Bean

> Thanks,
> 


> Bart.