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]

Message-ID: <CAPDyKFqzy9Tz9rC0gLbY5zyaGtLX6F_Le4bNzMb3=BhCoexGvg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:33:48 +0100
From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To: "Winkler, Tomas" <tomas.winkler@...el.com>
Cc: Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>, Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>, 
	"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

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 at 09:23, Winkler, Tomas <tomas.winkler@...el.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > +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.

Yes, I also agree. It makes sense to have a generic way to manage RPMB
partitions, even if there are some specific parts that must be managed
differently based on the underlying technology.

That said, I tend to think that we actually want the UFS and NVMe
implementation being included in the $subject series too. To get the
complete picture. Otherwise, we may just end up having to redesign a
lot of things, if we just start with eMMC.

>  In addition I might be wrong but I don't see much value in eMMC as the UFS and NVMe are currently leading technologies.

Even if UFS and NVMe have been taking over some of the earlier eMMC
product segments, I think it's too soon to declare eMMC dead. :-)

Moreover, we also have older platforms that we want to get supported
upstream and allowing them to move away from downstream-hacks, is also
a very good reason to add eMMC support.

> Thanks
> Tomas
>

Kind regards
Uffe