netdev - Re: [RESEND PATCH v18 0/3] userspace MHI client interface driver

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: <20210203104028.62d41962@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 Feb 2021 10:40:28 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@...aro.org>
Cc:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@...eaurora.org>,
        Bhaumik Bhatt <bbhatt@...eaurora.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v18 0/3] userspace MHI client interface driver

On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 19:28:28 +0100 Loic Poulain wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 at 19:05, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 03 Feb 2021 09:45:06 +0530 Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:  
> > > The current patchset only supports QMI channel so I'd request you to
> > > review the chardev node created for it. The QMI chardev node created
> > > will be unique for the MHI bus and the number of nodes depends on the
> > > MHI controllers in the system (typically 1 but not limited).  
> >
> > If you want to add a MHI QMI driver, please write a QMI-only driver.
> > This generic "userspace client interface" driver is a no go. Nobody will
> > have the time and attention to police what you throw in there later.  
> 
> Think it should be seen as filtered userspace access to MHI bus
> (filtered because not all channels are exposed), again it's not
> specific to MHI, any bus in Linux offers that (i2c, spi, usb, serial,
> etc...). It will not be specific to QMI, since we will also need it
> for MBIM (modem control path), AT commands, and GPS (NMEA frames), all
> these protocols are usually handled by userspace tools and not linked
> to any internal Linux framework, so it would be better not having a
> dedicated chardev for each of them.

The more people argue for this backdoor interface the more distrustful
of it we'll become. Keep going at your own peril.