linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] dma-buf: heaps: Add secure heap

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, 22 Dec 2023 09:40:18 +0000
From: Simon Ser <contact@...rsion.fr>
To: Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@...il.com>
Cc: Joakim Bech <joakim.bech@...aro.org>, Yong Wu <yong.wu@...iatek.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>, christian.koenig@....com, Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Jeffrey Kardatzke <jkardatzke@...gle.com>, Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...labora.com>, Vijayanand Jitta <quic_vjitta@...cinc.com>, Nicolas Dufresne <nicolas@...fresne.ca>, jianjiao.zeng@...iatek.com, linux-media@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, ckoenig.leichtzumerken@...il.com, linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org, linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, tjmercier@...gle.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>, kuohong.wang@...iatek.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] dma-buf: heaps: Add secure heap

On Wednesday, December 13th, 2023 at 15:16, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@...il.com> wrote:

> > > It is protected/shielded/fortified from all the kernel and userspace,
> > > but a more familiar word to describe that is inaccessible.
> > > "Inaccessible buffer" per se OTOH sounds like a useless concept.
> > > 
> > > It is not secure, because it does not involve security in any way. In
> > > fact, given it's so fragile, I'd classify it as mildly opposite of
> > > secure, as e.g. clients of a Wayland compositor can potentially DoS the
> > > compositor with it by simply sending such a dmabuf. Or DoS the whole
> > > system.
> > 
> > I hear what you are saying and DoS is a known problem and attack vector,
> > but regardless, we have use cases where we don't want to expose
> > information in the clear and where we also would like to have some
> > guarantees about correctness. That is where various secure elements and
> > more generally security is needed.
> > 
> > So, it sounds like we have two things here, the first is the naming and
> > the meaning behind it. I'm pretty sure the people following and
> > contributing to this thread can agree on a name that makes sense. Would
> > you personally be OK with "restricted" as the name? It sounds like that.
> 
> I would. I'm also just a by-stander, not a maintainer of kernel
> anything. I have no power to accept nor reject anything here.

I'd also personally be OK with "restricted", I think it's a lot better
than "secure".

In general I agree with everything Pekka said.