On Saturday 31 January 2015 15:38:28 Matthijs van Duin wrote: > On Sunday 08 December 2013 00:22:06 Tony Lindgren wrote: > > * Sebastian Reichel <sre@xxxxxxxx> [131207 15:04]: > > > On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 01:11:37PM -0800, Tony Lindgren > > > wrote: > > > > > I asked Pali to send me his copy of the updated NOLO > > > > > bootloader, so that I can test this. I just checked > > > > > the omap documentation (I only have access to the > > > > > public one) and crypto related stuff is not > > > > > documented for the L3_PM_READ_PERMISSION register. > > > > > There are a couple of reserved bits, which may be > > > > > used for this, though. > > > > > > > > > > I also CC'd Joel Fernandes, since he worked on the > > > > > driver before and may have access to the > > > > > documentation. > > > > > > > > Looks like at least the 36xx public version referenced > > > > here has them: > > > > > > > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg21857.html > > > > > > > > I'd assume the registers are the same for 34xx since we > > > > don't have them defined separately in the kernel. > > > > > > I can't find it in the omap36xx documentation either. > > > Maybe I search at the wrong position. > > I've checked a few of the oldest (in case it was later > removed) and newest (in case it was later added) omap3-series > public TRMs I have, none of them list the aes module or > associated interconnect info. The region is either "reserved" > or just silently skipped over. The practice of pretending > something doesn't exist in the TRM while simultaneously > releasing a linux driver continues to puzzle me. > > > > I tried to find something crypto related in > > > > > > Table 9-89. L3_PM_READ_PERMISSION_i > > > > Hmm maybe it's done based on the address in > > L3_PM_ADDR_MATCH_k? > > According to the address (aes@480c5000) it's attached to the > L4-Core interconnect, so why would an L3 firewall be > involved? Its access control would be configured in the > L4-Core AP (2KB @ 0x48040000), and since they have an > integrated memory map you'd automatically know which entry is > responsible, assuming you can access the AP at all. Do you have idea if it is possible to write such check in kernel if address (aes@480c5000) is readable or not? I have configured two testing N900 devices. One with signed bootloader which enable omap aes support and one device with signed bootloader which does not enable omap aes support. So I can run any code/kernel patch and compare results/dumps between those two devices. Just I do not know what to do, or what to test... -- Pali Rohár pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
