netdev - Re: [PATCH 4/8] platform/x86/intel/sdsi: Add netlink SPDM transport

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: <ZbvcICGKGcD3IHTs@nanopsycho>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:00:00 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: "David E. Box" <david.e.box@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com,
	sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] platform/x86/intel/sdsi: Add netlink SPDM transport

Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 05:42:33PM CET, david.e.box@...ux.intel.com wrote:
>Hi Jiro,
>
>Thanks for your comments.
>
>On Thu, 2024-02-01 at 10:26 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 02:07:43AM CET, david.e.box@...ux.intel.com wrote:
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>> 
>> > +      -
>> > +        name: spdm-req
>> > +        type: binary
>> > +      -
>> > +        name: spdm-rsp
>> > +        type: binary
>> 
>> I don't understand the need to use netlink for this. Basically what you
>> do is you just use it to pass binary blobs to and from FW.
>> Advantages, like well-defined attributes, notifications etc, for which
>> it makes sense to use Netlink are not utilized at all.
>
>SPDM supports the setup of a secure channel between the responder and requestor
>using TLS based encryption algorthms. While this is just a transport for those
>blobs, netlink seemed an appropriate interface for this type of communication.
>The binary blobs can instead be broken out into the SPDM protocol messages,
>right out of the spec. But for our needs this would still just define the
>protocol. The algorithms themselves are not handled by the driver.

If that is a standard, break it from blob into well-defined attributes
and push it out of your driver to some common code.


>
>> Also, I don't thing it is good idea to have hw-driver-specific genl
>> family. I'm not aware of anything like that so far. Leave netlink
>> for use of generic and abstracted APIs.
>
>Sounds like an implied rule. If so should it be documented somewhere?
>
>> 
>> Can't you just have a simple misc device for this?
>
>It wouldn't be too much work to convert it.
>
>David