linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 18/20] gpu: nova-core: add types for patching firmware binaries

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: <6e97aa79-6d6f-497f-96d2-7568d6516682@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 12:54:31 +0200
From: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
To: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
 Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
 Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
 Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
 Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
 Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
 Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>,
 Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
 Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
 John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@...dia.com>,
 Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>, Timur Tabi <ttabi@...dia.com>,
 Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org,
 dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 18/20] gpu: nova-core: add types for patching firmware
 binaries

On 6/12/25 9:19 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Wed Jun 4, 2025 at 7:28 PM JST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>> If we can't patch them when the object is created, i.e. in
>> FirmwareDmaObject::new(), I think we should take self by value in
>> FirmwareDmaObject::patch_signature() and return a SignedFirmwareDmaObject (which
>> can just be a transparent wrapper) instead in order to let the type system prove
>> that we did not forget to call patch_signature().
> 
> This one is a bit tricky. Signature patching is actually optional,
> depending on whether there are signatures present at all (it might not
> be the case on development setups). So involving the type system here
> would require storing the result in an enum, and then match that enum
> later in order to do the same thing in both cases - load the binary
> as-is.
> 
> So I guess I would rather leave this one as it currently is, unless
> there is a better way I haven't thought about?

In the end the idea is to ensure that we can't forget to call patch_signature(), 
so even if it's optional we could do what I mentioned above, just that 
patch_signature() might be a noop?