[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJe_ZhdCJ7ba26cGY6-kJC0mCUXU+ACBW1k1VNmXS9gZcLi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2022 08:57:52 -0500
From: Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc: Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mailbox: arm,mhu: Make secure interrupt optional
On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 at 05:23, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 10:18:04AM -0500, Jassi Brar wrote:
>
> > > Anyways I can insert a module that requests this channel and bring down
> > > the system as accessing anything configure secure from non-secure side
> > > on Juno results in system hang/error.
> > >
> > Why go to those lengths? These are already simpler options available ;-)
> > 1) while (1) ; // preferably in some atomic context
> > 2) *((int *) 0) = 0; // you might want to iterate over offset for
> > guaranteed results
> > 3) Slightly more work, but you also have the opportunity to erase your
> > storage device
>
> I know these simple methods but can I hinder secure side services with
> these ?
>
Ideally, no. And neither if we enumerate the secure-channel in dt and driver.
See, even if you remove support for the secure channel in the kernel,
a doped super-user could always insmod a module that attempts to
access the secure address space that you want to "hide".
cheers.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists