> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jakub Kicinski <k...@kernel.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 10:44 PM
> To: Nguyen, Anthony L <anthony.l.ngu...@intel.com>
> Cc: da...@davemloft.net; Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.kel...@intel.com>;
> netdev@vger.kernel.org; sassm...@redhat.com; Brelinski, TonyX
> <tonyx.brelin...@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 03/15] ice: read security revision to
> ice_nvm_info
> and ice_orom_info
>
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 16:43:20 -0800 Tony Nguyen wrote:
> > From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.kel...@intel.com>
> >
> > The main NVM module and the Option ROM module contain a security
> > revision in their CSS header. This security revision is used to
> > determine whether or not the signed module should be loaded at bootup.
> > If the module security revision is lower than the associated minimum
> > security revision, it will not be loaded.
> >
> > The CSS header does not have a module id associated with it, and thus
> > requires flat NVM reads in order to access it. To do this, take
> > advantage of the cached bank information. Introduce a new
> > "ice_read_flash_module" function that takes the module and bank to read.
> > Implement both ice_read_active_nvm_module and
> > ice_read_active_orom_module. These functions will use the cached values
> > to determine the active bank and calculate the appropriate offset.
> >
> > Using these new access functions, extract the security revision for both
> > the main NVM bank and the Option ROM into the associated info structure.
> >
> > Add the security revisions to the devlink info output. Report the main
> > NVM bank security revision as "fw.mgmt.srev". Report the Option ROM
> > security revision as "fw.undi.srev".
> >
> > A future patch will add the associated minimum security revisions as
> > devlink flash parameters.
>
> This needs a wider discussion. Hopefully we can agree on a reasonably
> uniform way of handling this across vendors. Having to fish out
> _particular_ version keys out and then target _particular_ parameters
> for each vendor is not great.
>
Yea, I can see how that would be problematic. It does seem like some sort of
tied interface would make sense.
> First off - is there a standard around the version management that we
> can base the interface on? What about key management? There's gotta be
> a way of revoking keys too, right?
>
I am not sure. None of the implementation I've written deals with key
management and it wasn't an ask.
>
> I'd recommend separating the srev patches out of the series so the
> other ones can land.
Sure, We can do that.
