Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220728190810.1290857-1-robh@kernel.org> <CABb+yY2jV7c8oX7=F=nocfvGrOMHJAYov7zS2nT0=qFoNyoxJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABb+yY0JzztBB+giBu+RCt-dzgwYWF32sCR3WKKP9U5K9UvhxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220729111051.5me4vklrzskvsj4w@bogus> <CABb+yY1=cppy9QAN=cLWmhvmYrQ5QpY5adE+nRev1rVrtp-QUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220801102309.efvmde2ackh3vyg4@bogus>
In-Reply-To: <20220801102309.efvmde2ackh3vyg4@bogus>
From:   Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 1 Aug 2022 08:57:52 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJe_ZhdCJ7ba26cGY6-kJC0mCUXU+ACBW1k1VNmXS9gZcLi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mailbox: arm,mhu: Make secure interrupt optional
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc:     Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 at 05:23, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 10:18:04AM -0500, Jassi Brar wrote:
>
> > > Anyways I can insert a module that requests this channel and bring down
> > > the system as accessing anything configure secure from non-secure side
> > > on Juno results in system hang/error.
> > >
> > Why go to those lengths? These are already simpler options available  ;-)
> > 1)   while (1) ;      // preferably in some atomic context
> > 2)   *((int *) 0) = 0;   // you might want to iterate over offset for
> > guaranteed results
> > 3) Slightly more work, but you also have the opportunity to erase your
> > storage device
>
> I know these simple methods but can I hinder secure side services with
> these ?
>
Ideally, no. And neither if we enumerate the secure-channel in dt and driver.

See, even if you remove support for the secure channel in the kernel,
a doped super-user could always insmod a module that attempts to
access the secure address space that you want to "hide".

cheers.