linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] firmware: Add support for Qualcomm UEFI Secure Application

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: <s6yadwe6zgcim5dhjfo2zwlrd2ac3favmcf7c4y46kmub5pdtm@qwesv7eaajil>
Date:   Thu, 7 Sep 2023 13:40:03 -0700
From:   Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>
To:     Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>
Cc:     Trilok Soni <quic_tsoni@...cinc.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
        Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
        Steev Klimaszewski <steev@...i.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] firmware: Add support for Qualcomm UEFI Secure
 Application

On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 11:53:08PM +0200, Maximilian Luz wrote:
> On 8/27/23 23:26, Trilok Soni wrote:
> > On 8/27/2023 2:14 PM, Maximilian Luz wrote:
> > > +config QCOM_QSEECOM_UEFISECAPP
> > > +	bool "Qualcomm SEE UEFI Secure App client driver"
> > 
> > Why not "tristate"? This driver can be a loadable module, right?
> 
> As I understand, modular efivars have still not been fully sorted out in
> the kernel. For example, userspace could try and mount efivarfs before
> the module has been loaded and by that erroneously determine that the
> system doesn't support efivars. So requiring it to be built in for now
> is more of a workaround (which has been suggested by Johan Hovold).
> 
> There is no technical limitation in this part of the code itself, so
> enabling it (and QCOM_QSEECOM for that matter) to be built as module
> should be fairly straightforward once that's been sorted out.
> 

Afaict without resolving the efivars issue this is boolean in practice
anyways. As such, I intend to pick this for v6.7, and we can transition
to modular support incrementally from here.

Many thanks for sticking to the effort, Maximilian.

Regards,
Bjorn