linux-kernel - Re: [EXT] [PATCH v9 3/7] crypto: caam - determine whether CAAM supports blob encap/decap

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: <6fb4414da896cbac68332ae34eab5081@walle.cc>
Date:   Wed, 11 May 2022 13:54:53 +0200
From:   Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
To:     Horia Geantă <horia.geanta@....com>
Cc:     Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@....com>,
        Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
        James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Jan Luebbe <j.luebbe@...gutronix.de>,
        David Gstir <david@...ma-star.at>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Franck Lenormand <franck.lenormand@....com>,
        Matthias Schiffer <matthias.schiffer@...tq-group.com>,
        Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [EXT] [PATCH v9 3/7] crypto: caam - determine whether CAAM
 supports blob encap/decap

Am 2022-05-11 12:28, schrieb Horia Geantă:

>>>>> For non-E variants, it might happen that Blob protocol is enabled,
>>>>> but
>>>>> number of AES CHA are zero.
>>>>> If the output of below expression is > 0, then only blob_present
>>>>> should be marked present or true.
>>>>> For era > 10, you handled. But for era < 10, please add the below
>>>>> code.
>>>> 
>>>> Are there any CAAMs which can be just enabled partially for era < 
>>>> 10?
>>>> I didn't found anything. To me it looks like the non-export 
>>>> controlled
>>>> CAAM is only available for era >= 10. For era < 10, the CAAM is 
>>>> either
>>>> fully featured there or it is not available at all and thus the node
>>>> is removed in the bootloader (at least that is the case for
>>>> layerscape).
>>>> 
>>> Qouting from our previous discussion in U-boot:
>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20200602150904.1997-1-michael@walle.cc/#2457448
>>> 
>>> "
>>> Based on previous (NXP-internal) discussions, non-E crypto module is:
>>> -fully disabled on: LS1021A (ARMv7), LS1043A, LS1088A, LS2088A
>>> (and their personalities)
>>> -partially [*] disabled on: LS1012A, LS1028A, LS1046A, LX2160A
>>> (and their personalities)
>>> "
>>> 
>>> From the partially disabled list, LS1028A and LX2160A have CAAM Era 
>>> 10,
>>> while LS1012A and LS1046A integrate CAAM Era 8.
>> 
>> Thanks for clarification. Do you know it that is a layerscape feature?
>> I had a look at the imx8mn which have a era 9 and it doesn't have the
>> PKHA_VERSION register which indicates the partially disabled PKHA
>> block. Thus I concluded that there is no partially disabled feature
>> on era < 10.
>> 
> Unfortunately when moving from Era 9 to Era 10, the register map
> is not 100% backwards-compatible.
> This is why you're not seeing PKHA_VERSION register for i.MX8MN.
> 
> For Era >= 10, the CHA version and CHA number fields are conveniently 
> found
> found in the same *_VERSION register, e.g. PKHA_VID and PKHA_NUM are 
> both
> located in PKHA_VERSION.
> 
> For Era < 10, these fields are scattered:
> CHAVID_LS[PKVID]
> CHANUM_LS[PKNUM]

Ok, but there is only the number of instances. I couldn't find a
similar bit to the PKHA_VERSION[PKHA_MISC[7]] bit, which indicates
PKHA decryption/encryption capability is disabled. That seems to
be only for era >= 10, right? That was what caused my confusion,
because until now I was under the impression that non-E variants
will always have that bit.

Rereading your comment, you don't mention PKHA at all. So for
era <10 if you blow the EXPORT_CONTROL fuse, you'll have zero
in any *NUM except for MDNUM, RNGNUM and CRCNUM. Is that correct?

In that case, I agree, we should also check CHANUM_LS[AESNUM] for
era < 10.

-michael