lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] libnvdimm/security: Tighten scope of nvdimm->busy vs security operations
Date
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> writes:

> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 1:49 PM Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> writes:
>>
>> > The blanket blocking of all security operations while the DIMM is in
>> > active use in a region is too restrictive. The only security operations
>> > that need to be aware of the ->busy state are those that mutate the
>> > state of data, i.e. erase and overwrite.
>> >
>> > Refactor the ->busy checks to be applied at the entry common entry point
>> > in __security_store() rather than each of the helper routines.
>>
>> I'm not sure this buys you much. Did you test this on actual hardware
>> to make sure your assumptions are correct? I guess the worst case is we
>> get an "invalid security state" error back from the firmware....
>>
>> Still, what's the motivation for this?
>
> The motivation was when I went to test setting the frozen state and
> found that it complained about the DIMM being active. There's nothing
> wrong with freezing security while the DIMM is mapped. ...but then I
> somehow managed to write this generalized commit message that left out
> the explicit failure I was worried about. Yes, moved too fast, but the
> motivation is "allow freeze while active" and centralize the ->busy
> check so it's just one function to review that common constraint.

OK, thanks for the info.

Reviewed-by: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-19 16:32    [W:0.037 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site