linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] venus: hfi: add checks to handle capabilities from firmware

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]

Date:   Fri, 11 Aug 2023 09:41:33 +0100
From:   Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
To:     Vikash Garodia <quic_vgarodia@...cinc.com>,
        stanimir.k.varbanov@...il.com, agross@...nel.org,
        andersson@...nel.org, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org, mchehab@...nel.org,
        hans.verkuil@...co.com, tfiga@...omium.org
Cc:     linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] venus: hfi: add checks to handle capabilities from
 firmware

On 11/08/2023 06:54, Vikash Garodia wrote:
> The case is all about rogue firmware. If there is a need to fill the same cap
> again, that itself indicates that the payload from firmware is not correct. In
> such cases, the old as well as new cap data are not reliable. Though the
> authenticity of the data cannot be ensured, the check would avoid any OOB during
> such rogue firmware case.

Then why favour the old cap report over the new ?