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: <DAKKHV3XF7SE.2R83O5PCSDNK6@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 21:52:35 +0900
From: "Alexandre Courbot" <acourbot@...dia.com>
To: "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>
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 Thu Jun 12, 2025 at 7:54 PM JST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> 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?

Sure, I can add a method to transition to the signed state without doing
anything. At least it will make sure the caller knows what they are
doing.