From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
To: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com>,
Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>
Cc: Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>,
Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>,
Steev Klimaszewski <steev@kali.org>,
linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] firmware: qcom_scm: Export SCM call functions
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2023 14:20:32 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <afee5468-6c73-d088-e3ab-e9314492e49b@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <81468734-d25e-ddda-7bd1-1498ca6fa6ae@gmail.com>
On 08/03/2023 13:48, Maximilian Luz wrote:
> On 3/8/23 13:53, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 07/03/2023 15:23, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>
>>>> Make qcom_scm_call, qcom_scm_call_atomic and associated types
>>>> accessible
>>>> to other modules.
>>>
>>> Generally all the qcom_scm calls are a part of qcom_scm.c. I think it
>>> is better to make qseecom_scm_call a part qcom_scm.c (as we were
>>> previously doing) rather than exporting the core function.
>>>
>>
>> Other big issue I see in exporting qcom_scm_call() is that there is
>> danger of misuse of this api as this could lead to a path where new
>> apis and its payloads can come directly from userspace via a
>> rogue/hacking modules. This will bypass scm layer completely within
>> kernel.
>
> I'm not sure I follow your argument here. If you have the possibility to
> load your own kernel modules, can you not always bypass the kernel and
> just directly invoke the respective SCM calls manually? So this is
> superficial security at best.
qcom_scm_call() will expose a much bigger window where the user can add
new SCM APIs but with the current model of exporting symbols at SCM API
level will narrow that down to that API.
>
> I guess keeping it in qcom_scm could make it easier to spot new
> in-kernel users of that function and with that better prevent potential
> misuse in the kernel itself. But then again I'd hope that our review
> system is good enough to catch such issues regardless and thoroughly
> question calls to that function (especially ones involving user-space
> APIs).
One problem I can immediately see here is the facility that will be
exploited and promote more development outside upstream.
ex: vendor modules with GKI compliance.
--srini
>
> Regards,
> Max
>
>>
>> --srini
>>
>>> If you wish to limit the kernel bloat, you can split the qcom_scm
>>> into per-driver backend and add Kconfig symbols to limit the impact.
>>> However I think that these functions are pretty small to justify the
>>> effort.
>>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-08 14:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-05 2:21 [PATCH v3 0/4] firmware: Add support for Qualcomm UEFI Secure Application Maximilian Luz
2023-03-05 2:21 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] firmware: qcom_scm: Export SCM call functions Maximilian Luz
2023-03-07 15:23 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-03-08 12:53 ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2023-03-08 13:48 ` Maximilian Luz
2023-03-08 14:20 ` Srinivas Kandagatla [this message]
2023-03-08 15:09 ` Maximilian Luz
2023-03-08 13:29 ` Maximilian Luz
2023-03-05 2:21 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] firmware: Add support for Qualcomm Secure Execution Environment SCM interface Maximilian Luz
2023-03-07 15:32 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-03-08 13:59 ` Maximilian Luz
2023-03-09 8:45 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-03-09 20:54 ` Maximilian Luz
2023-03-07 15:36 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-03-08 14:06 ` Maximilian Luz
2023-03-09 8:07 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-03-05 2:21 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] dt-bindings: firmware: Add Qualcomm QSEECOM interface Maximilian Luz
2023-03-08 22:16 ` Rob Herring
2023-03-08 22:44 ` Maximilian Luz
2023-03-09 1:33 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-03-09 2:27 ` Maximilian Luz
2023-03-09 8:19 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-03-09 20:34 ` Maximilian Luz
2023-03-09 20:43 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-05-02 8:38 ` Sudeep Holla
2023-05-02 10:52 ` Maximilian Luz
2023-05-02 8:31 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2023-05-02 10:57 ` Maximilian Luz
2023-03-05 2:21 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] firmware: Add support for Qualcomm UEFI Secure Application Maximilian Luz
2023-03-07 15:51 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-03-08 15:02 ` Maximilian Luz
2023-03-09 8:36 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-03-09 20:44 ` Maximilian Luz
2023-06-29 12:26 ` Johan Hovold
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=afee5468-6c73-d088-e3ab-e9314492e49b@linaro.org \
--to=srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org \
--cc=agross@kernel.org \
--cc=andersson@kernel.org \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org \
--cc=ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org \
--cc=johan@kernel.org \
--cc=konrad.dybcio@linaro.org \
--cc=krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luzmaximilian@gmail.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=steev@kali.org \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=sumit.garg@linaro.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