linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 3/4] misc: fastrpc: Cleanup the domain names

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: <f5ea9bc1-7617-4573-a10e-3499161a7819@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 21:25:27 +0200
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
To: Ling Xu <quic_lxu5@...cinc.com>, srini@...nel.org,
        amahesh@....qualcomm.com, robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
        conor+dt@...nel.org, andersson@...nel.org, konradybcio@...nel.org,
        arnd@...db.de, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc: quic_kuiw@...cinc.com, ekansh.gupta@....qualcomm.com,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/4] misc: fastrpc: Cleanup the domain names

On 7/9/25 7:47 AM, Ling Xu wrote:
> Currently the domain ids are added for each instance of domains, this is
> totally not scalable approach. Clean this mess and create domain ids for
> only domains not its instances.
> 
> Co-developed-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Ling Xu <quic_lxu5@...cinc.com>
> ---

[...]

> @@ -2330,21 +2323,20 @@ static int fastrpc_rpmsg_probe(struct rpmsg_device *rpdev)
>  	case ADSP_DOMAIN_ID:
>  	case MDSP_DOMAIN_ID:
>  	case SDSP_DOMAIN_ID:
> -		/* Unsigned PD offloading is only supported on CDSP and CDSP1 */
> +		/* Unsigned PD offloading is only supported on CDSP */
>  		data->unsigned_support = false;
> -		err = fastrpc_device_register(rdev, data, secure_dsp, domains[domain_id]);
> +		err = fastrpc_device_register(rdev, data, secure_dsp, domain);
>  		if (err)
>  			goto err_free_data;
>  		break;
>  	case CDSP_DOMAIN_ID:
> -	case CDSP1_DOMAIN_ID:
>  		data->unsigned_support = true;
>  		/* Create both device nodes so that we can allow both Signed and Unsigned PD */
> -		err = fastrpc_device_register(rdev, data, true, domains[domain_id]);
> +		err = fastrpc_device_register(rdev, data, true, domain);
>  		if (err)
>  			goto err_free_data;
>  
> -		err = fastrpc_device_register(rdev, data, false, domains[domain_id]);
> +		err = fastrpc_device_register(rdev, data, false, domain);
>  		if (err)
>  			goto err_deregister_fdev;
>  		break;

Taking a step back, do we realistically need these checks at all?
I would assume that there is a layer of security on the DSP side
that would disallow running code in unsigned PDs on e.g. the ADSP.

What happens if one skips them and attempts doing just that?

Konrad