linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/3] dt-bindings: crypto: Add Inside Secure SafeXcel EIP-93 crypto engine

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20241017124805.GB3032377-robh@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 07:48:05 -0500
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Antoine Tenart <atenart@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
	Richard van Schagen <vschagen@...oud.com>,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/3] dt-bindings: crypto: Add Inside Secure
 SafeXcel EIP-93 crypto engine

On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 10:23:54AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 02:43:18AM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote:
>  +
> > +description: |
> > +  The Inside Secure SafeXcel EIP-93 is a cryptographic engine IP block
> > +  integrated in varios devices with very different and generic name from
> > +  PKTE to simply vendor+EIP93. The real IP under the hood is actually
> > +  developed by Inside Secure and given to license to vendors.
> > +
> > +  The IP block is sold with different model based on what feature are
> > +  needed and are identified with the final letter. Each letter correspond
> > +  to a specific set of feature and multiple letter reflect the sum of the
> > +  feature set.
> 
> You write it is licensed to vendors, so are you sure these could be
> used alone, without vendor customizations/hookups etc? I think you
> should have a dedicated, SoC-specific compatible in the front. I am not
> sure if this was discussed already, though.

Probably should, but some reason we haven't on other Inside Secure IP. 
Perhaps they are just simple enough from a DT perspective to get away 
without. Also, there may not be any SoC associated with some of these. 
If there is an SoC, then better to add a compatible to help avoid any 
future DT changes.

Rob