linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v3 1/3] rpmb: add Replay Protected Memory Block (RPMB) subsystem

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: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 08:22:57 +0000
From: "Winkler, Tomas" <tomas.winkler@...el.com>
To: Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
	Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"op-tee@...ts.trustedfirmware.org" <op-tee@...ts.trustedfirmware.org>, "Shyam
 Saini" <shyamsaini@...ux.microsoft.com>, Jerome Forissier
	<jerome.forissier@...aro.org>, Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>, "Ilias
 Apalodimas" <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>, Bart Van Assche
	<bvanassche@....org>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, Ard Biesheuvel
	<ardb@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Greg Kroah-Hartman
	<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Alex Bennée
	<alex.bennee@...aro.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 1/3] rpmb: add Replay Protected Memory Block (RPMB)
 subsystem


> > > +struct rpmb_frame {
> > > +       u8     stuff[196];
> > > +       u8     key_mac[32];
> > > +       u8     data[256];
> > > +       u8     nonce[16];
> > > +       __be32 write_counter;
> > > +       __be16 addr;
> > > +       __be16 block_count;
> > > +       __be16 result;
> > > +       __be16 req_resp;
> > > +} __packed;
> >
> > I haven't looked at the NVME or the UFS spec in detail. Although, I
> > assume the above frame makes sense for those types of
> interfaces/protocols too?
> The rpmb implementation in ufs, has drifted apart from eMMC. E.g. in
> UFS4.0:
>  -  the frame is different - see struct ufs_arpmb_meta in
> include/uapi/scsi/scsi_bsg_ufs.h,
>  - Additional extended header was added,
>  - the frame size is no longer 512Bytes (256Bytes meta info + 256Bytes data)
> but 4k,
>  - there are 9 rpmb operations instead of 7,
>  - The atomicity requirement of the command sequence was waved, And
> probably more differences that I forgot.
> This is why it is better to designated this as an eMMC-only implementation?

As  I wrote previously the original implementation has already resolved protocol differences
 (NVMe have also different byte ordering) for closed usecase of storing data (not the configuration)  
I believe the whole point here is to let TEE driver to store the data, regardless of the technology. 
 In addition I might be wrong but I don't see much value in eMMC as the UFS and NVMe are currently leading technologies. 
Thanks
Tomas