lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [Apr]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 1/3] rpmb: add Replay Protected Memory Block (RPMB) subsystem
On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 1:24 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Jens,
>
> thanks for your patch!
>
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 4:31 PM Jens Wiklander
> <jens.wiklander@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> > A number of storage technologies support a specialised hardware
> > partition designed to be resistant to replay attacks. The underlying
> > HW protocols differ but the operations are common. The RPMB partition
> > cannot be accessed via standard block layer, but by a set of specific
> > RPMB commands: WRITE, READ, GET_WRITE_COUNTER, and PROGRAM_KEY. Such a
> > partition provides authenticated and replay protected access, hence
> > suitable as a secure storage.
> >
> > The initial aim of this patch is to provide a simple RPMB driver
> > interface which can be accessed by the optee driver to facilitate early
> > RPMB access to OP-TEE OS (secure OS) during the boot time.
> >
> > A TEE device driver can claim the RPMB interface, for example, via
> > rpmb_interface_register() or rpmb_dev_find_device(). The RPMB driver
> > provides a callback to route RPMB frames to the RPMB device accessible
> > via rpmb_route_frames().
> >
> > The detailed operation of implementing the access is left to the TEE
> > device driver itself.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Shyam Saini <shyamsaini@linux.microsoft.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@linaro.org>
>
> I would mention in the commit that the subsystem is currently
> only used with eMMC but is designed to be used also by UFS
> and NVME. Nevertheless, no big deal so:
> Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
>
> > +config RPMB
> > + tristate "RPMB partition interface"
> > + depends on MMC
>
> depends on MMC || SCSI_UFSHCD || NVME_CORE
> ?
>
> Or do we want to hold it off until we implement the backends?

Correct, I think we should hold it off until then.

Thanks,
Jens

>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2024-05-27 16:20    [W:0.061 / U:3.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site