linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 0/3] hwrng: add hwrng support for Rockchip RK3568

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: <CAGb2v65xZEeZWmKFCRqyO7H=r7_jA4FTJxwKSVj7-qVXPS_fKw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 20:08:04 +0800
From: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...nel.org>
To: Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>
Cc: Dragan Simic <dsimic@...jaro.org>, Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>, 
	Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@...ow.org>, linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, 
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, Martin Kaiser <martin@...ser.cx>, 
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>, 
	Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, 
	Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@...ian.org>, 
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, 
	Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>, Olivia Mackall <olivia@...enic.com>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@...el32.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/3] hwrng: add hwrng support for Rockchip RK3568

On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 6:37 PM Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de> wrote:
>
> Am Dienstag, 30. Juli 2024, 11:03:06 CEST schrieb Diederik de Haas:
> > On Tuesday, 30 July 2024 01:18:37 CEST Daniel Golle wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 08:07:51AM +0200, Dragan Simic wrote:
> > > > Thanks a lot for the testing.  Though, such wildly different test results
> > > > can, regrettably, lead to only one conclusion:  the HWRNG found in RK3566
> > > > is unusable. :/
> >
> > FTR: I agree with Dragan, unfortunately.
> >
> > > The results on RK3568 look much better and the series right now also
> > > only enabled the RNG on RK3568 systems. However, we have only seen few
> > > boards with RK3568 up to now, and I only got a couple of NanoPi R5C
> > > here to test, all with good hwrng results.
> > >
> > > Do you think it would be agreeable to only enable the HWRNG for RK3568
> > > as suggested in this series? Or are we expecting quality to also vary
> > > as much as it (sadly) does for RK3566?
> >
> > Unless we get *evidence* to the contrary, we should assume that the HWRNG on
> > RK3568 is fine as the currently available test results are fine.
> > So I think enabling it only for RK3568 is the right thing to do.
> >
> > So a 'revert' to v7 variant seems appropriate, but with the following changes:
> > - Add `status = "disabled";` property to the definition in rk356x.dtsi
> > - Add a new commit where you enable it only for rk3568 and document in the
> > commit message why it's not enabled on rk3566 with a possible link to the v7
> > thread for clarification on why that is
>
> I was going to protest about the "disable" until reading the 2nd part :-D .
>
> And yeah that makes a lot of sense, "add" it to rk356x.dtsi, as the IP is
> part of both variants, but only enable it in rk3568.dtsi because of the
> seemingly faulty implementation on the rk3566.

Better yet, mark it as "broken" in rk3566.dtsi to reflect the tests that
we've all done.

ChenYu

> > You could probably also integrate that into 1 commit, but make sure that the
> > commit summary and description match the implementation.
> > IMO that wasn't 'technically' the case in v8 as the rng node was added to
> > rk356x, but it was only enabled on rk3568.
> >
> > My 0.02
>
>
>
>