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
| ||
|
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists