From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF5C3C4320A for ; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 19:47:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C14B361008 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 19:47:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236889AbhHDTsG (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Aug 2021 15:48:06 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f53.google.com ([209.85.128.53]:56193 "EHLO mail-wm1-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S238128AbhHDTsF (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Aug 2021 15:48:05 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-f53.google.com with SMTP id x17so1841369wmc.5 for ; Wed, 04 Aug 2021 12:47:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=63JCtXviRa75YRITsqMmY7CQ0hQSrisGx8q6KTvYjyA=; b=eI9799xmQ30wNxcATHltPEH0HyuSy6Ok0TmscmJm+iween1nJm+xw6G90CXAl0nwSg RoIWPv3LCALtrcUfEfTfuXoSmFi2JoI4AJ4frv2GOzvzknRpItmBsbYRPfnKliJ12ohH cwjiwWcVNaWOu7FCcDlqObCxDApz7gkAOR2ha4vx/ekWFFO2CaFR2BNuTkV0gOjQJqGD MjqFon7I0StI0nysrfSdj88BjarbV3J+MR9V9qOgN/L4eA/h3nmKWQT/a/FolZWuRiss zJAvZi+aVEQEmtU4BkWoANfS9A7khfmMZca2SRVVDRoCRhWs7A9wk/siRsgWAt04cG4K maaQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532q8jJ5GBdLXQ/OHEkSoR4uuqLcxXbfNz+WYuxxaT1OY5TTVdbX pghCO/8VsXoMN52Di6oBWck= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwRRo2jcevsZfFEy4kMi4tTmsUivlQNIkHmsjp53gC5Bhy2ZAxZATp5SAGHKSF8xyXiA4S6NQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:c9:: with SMTP id u9mr11459464wmm.146.1628106470944; Wed, 04 Aug 2021 12:47:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([149.172.45.165]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w9sm3175838wmc.19.2021.08.04.12.47.50 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 04 Aug 2021 12:47:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2021 12:47:48 -0700 From: Moritz Fischer To: Greg KH Cc: Moritz Fischer , Russ Weight , Tom Rix , linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org, moritzf@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] fpga: sec-mgr: enable secure updates Message-ID: References: <5d0552ce-d2bd-cca1-006e-8f11991fd378@intel.com> <85cd4801-ca1f-4482-6999-3d2e648b24e5@intel.com> <3ba35b3c-3c85-394b-f404-130968587a6f@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 05:12:41PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 07:58:34AM -0700, Moritz Fischer wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 09:37:45AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 12:02:24PM -0700, Russ Weight wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/2/21 10:49 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > > > >> If the request_firmware() implementation is not acceptable, then would > > > > >> you agree that an IOCTL implementation is our best option? > > > > > There is no difference in the end between using an ioctl, or a sysfs > > > > > file, to provide the filename of your firmware, don't get hung up on > > > > > that. > > > > > > > > I meant to suggest that passing file data (not a filename) through an > > > > IOCTL might be better for this use case than trying to use request_firmware. > > > > We have to, somehow, allow the user to point us to the desired image > > > > data (which could be a root-entry-hash, or an FPGA image). We can't > > > > really use a fixed filename modified by device version as many of > > > > the devices do. > > > > > > Ah, yes, a "normal" write command might be best for this as that can be > > > properly containerized and controlled. > > > > > > > > By providing a "filename", you are going around all of the namespace and > > > > > other "container" protection that the kernel provides, and allowing > > > > > processes to potentially load files that are normally outside of their > > > > > scope to the hardware. If you are willing to allow that security > > > > > "escape", wonderful, but you better document the heck out of it and > > > > > explain why this is allowed for your special hardware and use case. > > > > > > > > > > As you are expecting this to work "in the cloud", I do not think that > > > > > the operators of such hardware are really going to be all that happy to > > > > > see this type of interface given these reasons. > > > > > > > > > > What is wrong with the current fpga firmware api that somehow is lacking > > > > > for your special hardware, that other devices do not have to worry > > > > > about? > > > > The existing framework wants to update the live image in the FPGA, > > > > whereas for this device, we are passing signed data to BMC firmware > > > > which will store it in FLASH to be loaded on a subsequent boot of > > > > the card. > > > > > > > > The existing framework needs to manage FPGA state, whereas for this > > > > device, it is just a transfer of signed data. We also have to handle > > > > a total transfer/authentication time of up to 45 minutes, so we are > > > > using a kernel worker thread for the update. > > > > > > > > Perhaps the name, fpga security manager, is wrong? Maybe something > > > > like fpga_sec_image_xfer is better? > > > > > > It does not sound like this has anything to do with "security", and > > > rather is just a normal firmware upload, so "fpga_image_upload()" > > > perhaps? > > > > I had originally suggested 'load' and 'persist' or 'load' and 'update or > > something of that sort. > > > > Taking one step back, maybe the case could be made for a generic > > 'persistent firmware' update framework that addresses use-cases that > > require updating firmware that may take extended periods of time. > > There should not be a problem with using the existing firmware layer for > images that take long periods of time, as long as you are not wanting to > see any potential progress :) > > So how about just adding anything missing to the existing firmware > subsystem. It's attempting to handle all use cases already, if it is > missing one, no harm in adding more options there... Even better if we can do that. It would have a limited overlap with existing functionality, though. - Moritz