linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 6/8] firmware: qcom: scm: add modparam to control QSEECOM enablement

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: <aF0cyOpkjUI4R3bv@hovoldconsulting.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 12:11:20 +0200
From: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
	Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>,
	Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
	Steev Klimaszewski <steev@...i.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
	Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
	Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/8] firmware: qcom: scm: add modparam to control
 QSEECOM enablement

On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 01:53:25AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
> 
> In preparation to enabling QSEECOM for the platforms rather than
> individual machines provide a mechanism for the user to override default
> selection. Allow users to use qcom_scm.qseecom modparam.
> 
> Setting it to 'force' will enable QSEECOM even if it disabled or not
> handled by the allowlist.
> 
> Setting it to 'off' will forcibly disable the QSEECOM interface,
> allowing incompatible machines to function.
> 
> Setting it to 'roefivars' will enable the QSEECOM interface, making UEFI
> variables read-only.
> 
> All other values mean 'auto', trusting the allowlist in the module.

I don't see the need for this. The kernel should just provide sensible
defaults.

Johan