On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 03:04:42PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > +There are many things this interface must not allow user space to do (without a
> > +Taint or CAP), broadly derived from the principles of kernel lockdown. Some
> > +examples:
> > +
> > + 1. DMA to/from arbitrary memory, hang the system, run code in the device, or
>
> An RPC message is going to run code in the device. Should this say something instead
> like:
>
> download [or load] code to be executed in the device,
Yeah, it is a hard concept. It is kind of murky as even today's
devlink flash will let you load untrusted code into the device under
lockdown AFAICR.
How about:
1. DMA to/from arbitrary memory, hang the system, compromise FW integrity with
untrusted code, or otherwise compromise device or system security and
integrity.
Which is a little broader I suppose.
> > +The kernel remains the gatekeeper for this interface. If violations of the
> > +scopes, security or isolation principles are found, we have options to let
> > +devices fix them with a FW update, push a kernel patch to parse and block RPC
>
> fwctl does not do FW updates, is that correct?
I think it is up to the specific RPCs the device supports. Given there
is currently no way to marshal a large amount of data it is not a good
interface for FW update.
I'd encourage people to use devlink flash more broadly, but I also
wouldn't go out of the way to block FW update RPCs that might exist
from here.
I certainly wouldn't want people to make their own FW update ioctls
(as still seems to be happening) out of fear they shouldn't use
fwctl :\
Looking particularly at mlx5, we've had devlink flash for a long time
now, but it hasn't suceeded to displace the mlx5 specific tools, for
whatever reason.
I grabbed all the changes here thanks!
Jason
