linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mailbox: arm,mhu: Make secure interrupt optional

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: <20220801102838.u3hcziiwts7bpxt2@bogus>
Date:   Mon, 1 Aug 2022 11:28:38 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mailbox: arm,mhu: Make secure interrupt
 optional

On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 05:17:26PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 5:10 AM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:

[...]

> >
> > No this doesn't work IMO. Yes standalone everything looks fine, but you can
> > insert a module requesting this channel and bring down the system. So I am
> > not for this change.
>
> Not having the interrupt listed in DT doesn't prevent that. Is this
> security by obscurity?
>

I agree, as I mentioned in the other thread, if we had a way to mark that
channel as used elsewhere or disabled or unavailable, it would have been
great.

> I don't really care which way this is fixed though.

Understood.

> I just want the warning gone. We've all got better things to worry about.

Agreed.

> The DT not having the interrupt has been that way for years (presumably)
> and the kernel never needs the interrupt, so the schema should reflect
> reality.

I prefer this approach.

> On the flip side, considering it *can* be present already, there's not
> really much argument for not having it.
>

Can't disagree/argue that 😄.

--
Regards,
Sudeep