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]

Message-ID: <f1bbcd06-f888-b466-1b7e-7034ab4004e7@quicinc.com>
Date:   Fri, 11 Aug 2023 14:21:21 +0530
From:   Vikash Garodia <quic_vgarodia@...cinc.com>
To:     Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>,
        <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 8/11/2023 2:11 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> 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 ?

When the driver hits the case for OOB, thats when it knows that something has
gone wrong. Keeping old or new, both are invalid values in such case, nothing to
favor any value.

Regards,
Vikash