public inbox for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/6 v10] gpio: Add block GPIO
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 17:02:15 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121207170215.0057f791@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50C1DE21.8050709@antcom.de>

On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 13:16:33 +0100
Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de> wrote:

> On 12/07/2012 01:06 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
> > On 12/07/2012 11:36 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
> >>> * Device interface for userland access (alternative to sysfs)
> >>
> >> Currently we can set different permissions on different GPIO lines. Your
> >> driver change drives a truck through this facility.
> 
> What I maybe misread in your concern: The dev interface is actually an
> "alternative to sysfs for block GPIO", not considered as a replacement
> for the current sysfs interface for _single_ GPIOs.

That is the problem. If you add the driver then you can no longer
implement the same permissions per node. If I've got a typical hardened
embedded device running something like SMACK I can tie a few gpio lines
to specific tasks in the security model.

The moment there is another driver anyone who can open that driver can
bypass all the security rules being imposed.

The basic problem is that right now our mapping is

"gpio line is a file system object"

you change it to

"all gpio lines are a single file system object"

Thats a bit like moving from "each document has permissions" to "allo my
documents have one permission set between them"

That makes it a very big step backwards and a fundamental change to the
entire auth model. It's not too horrendous in the case that the block
GPIO interface is the least restrictive case, but its very bad the
other way around.

The problem isn't the block API, the problem is changing the entire file
system level view of what a GPIO is and how it is access controlled.

Alan

  reply	other threads:[~2012-12-07 17:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-12-06 21:47 [PATCH 0/6 v10] gpio: Add block GPIO Roland Stigge
2012-12-06 21:47 ` [PATCH 1/6 v10] gpio: Add a block GPIO API to gpiolib Roland Stigge
2012-12-06 21:47 ` [PATCH 2/6 v10] gpio: Add sysfs support to block GPIO API Roland Stigge
2012-12-06 21:47 ` [PATCH 3/6 v10] gpio: Add userland device interface to block GPIO Roland Stigge
2012-12-06 21:47 ` [PATCH 4/6 v10] gpiolib: Fix default attributes for class Roland Stigge
2012-12-06 21:47 ` [PATCH 5/6 v10] gpio: Add device tree support to block GPIO API Roland Stigge
2012-12-06 21:47 ` [PATCH 6/6 v10] gpio: Add block gpio to several gpio drivers Roland Stigge
2012-12-07 10:36 ` [PATCH 0/6 v10] gpio: Add block GPIO Alan Cox
2012-12-07 12:06   ` Roland Stigge
2012-12-07 12:16     ` Roland Stigge
2012-12-07 17:02       ` Alan Cox [this message]
2012-12-07 17:33         ` Roland Stigge
2012-12-07 21:28           ` Alan Cox

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20121207170215.0057f791@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk \
    --to=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox