linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] dt-bindings: firmware: Add Qualcomm UEFI Secure Application client

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 28 Jul 2022 13:45:57 +0200
From:   Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc:     Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Steev Klimaszewski <steev@...i.org>,
        Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
        Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] dt-bindings: firmware: Add Qualcomm UEFI Secure
 Application client

On 7/28/22 13:21, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 12:05:15PM +0200, Maximilian Luz wrote:
>> On 7/28/22 10:23, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>> Worst case I am fine with that as this needs to be one of and future
>>> platforms must get their act right in designing their f/w interface.
>>
>> Again, I fully agree with you that this situation shouldn't exist. But
>> reality is sadly different.
>>
> 
> As I mentioned I don't have final authority to say yes or no to DT bindings.
> I have expressed my opinion and I thing allowing this to be generic via DT
> bindings gives no incentive to get the firmware story right. Hence I am happy
> to see this as one-off driver change and then we more changes are added to
> the driver or similar drivers get added in the future, we have a change to
> demand what action has been taken to fix the firmware story.
> 
> Just adding DT support(which I disagree) will make future platform to just
> use it and not get improvements in areas of discovery or query from the
> firmware.

Okay, that is a good point. Although it's probably debatable how much
control we have over what goes on with WoA devices.

Would something like this work for you: Add a compatible for the TrEE
interface (e.g. qcom,sc8180x-tee) but not for the specific apps running
in that and then instantiate the app-specific sub-devices from that. We
would still have to hard-code app-names in the driver (i.e. shift the
problem from DT to driver and potentially create soc-specific lists),
but they're no longer in DT (again, I'm not a particular fan of this but
I could live with that, if needed).

We can then look for a solution for apps that need to be manually loaded
or vendor/device specific apps once those becomes an issue.

Regards,
Max