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:   Thu, 07 Apr 2022 18:28:59 +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 13:20 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 4/6/22 11:12, Bean Huo wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> Are any applications using the RPMB code from ufs-utils? It seems to
> me 
> that the ufs-utils code doe not handle SCSI unit attentions
> correctly. 
> If a POWER ON unit attention is received as reply to a SECURITY
> PROTOCOL 
> OUT transaction, the write counter should be reread instead of
> retrying 
> the SECURITY PROTOCOL OUT command with the same write counter.
> 

Not much sure how customers use this tool, based on my little
information from the field, the customer developed their own RPMB code
in the application. Here utils code is good example for them to study
and verify RPMB functinalities.

> Regarding adding a UFS RPMB driver: that seems useful to me since 
> multiple applications make use of the UFS RPMB functionality. My 
> understanding is that currently storageproxyd multiplexes UFS RPMB 
> accesses in Android.
> 

I have the same opinion with you, if we have an unified RPMB access
interface, and adding RPMB driver in the kernel, thus is better to
manage RPMB.

Kind regards,
Bean

> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.