linux-kernel - Re: [RFC, PATCH 1/1] rpmb: add Replay Protected Memory Block (RPMB) driver

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: <CACRpkdb=AnJXG2J_DRsN-RUEh=7_eAs8+_CxPYuueVM0c=DP3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Aug 2023 10:04:20 +0200
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Shyam Saini <shyamsaini@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc:     Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
        Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
        Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>,
        Jerome Forissier <jerome.forissier@...aro.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
        op-tee@...ts.trustedfirmware.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@...aro.org>,
        Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@...el.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd.bergmann@...aro.org>,
        Tyler Hicks <code@...icks.com>,
        "Srivatsa S . Bhat" <srivatsa@...il.mit.edu>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        Allen Pais <apais@...ux.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 1/1] rpmb: add Replay Protected Memory Block (RPMB) driver

On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 9:07 PM Shyam Saini
<shyamsaini@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:

> do we plan to disable access to RPMB devices, once we have this RPMB
> driver in place. User space tools like mmc-utils/nvme/ufs utils
> can still access RPMB and programme the key and should
> RPMB driver deny access to RPMB ?

We don't break userspace. Just not. This is not an option.

The RPMB subsystem simply has to provide the rpmb character
device the same way the MMC subsystem did, or provide an
in-kernel backend to the MMC subsystem so that it can provide
the same device. Whatever solution is best.

No deprecation and deletion and breaking userspace. Ever.

Yours,
Linus Walleij