Messages in this thread | | | From | Dan Williams <> | Date | Fri, 16 Aug 2019 14:02:19 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] libnvdimm/security: Tighten scope of nvdimm->busy vs security operations |
| |
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 1:49 PM Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> wrote: > > Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> writes: > > > The blanket blocking of all security operations while the DIMM is in > > active use in a region is too restrictive. The only security operations > > that need to be aware of the ->busy state are those that mutate the > > state of data, i.e. erase and overwrite. > > > > Refactor the ->busy checks to be applied at the entry common entry point > > in __security_store() rather than each of the helper routines. > > I'm not sure this buys you much. Did you test this on actual hardware > to make sure your assumptions are correct? I guess the worst case is we > get an "invalid security state" error back from the firmware.... > > Still, what's the motivation for this?
The motivation was when I went to test setting the frozen state and found that it complained about the DIMM being active. There's nothing wrong with freezing security while the DIMM is mapped. ...but then I somehow managed to write this generalized commit message that left out the explicit failure I was worried about. Yes, moved too fast, but the motivation is "allow freeze while active" and centralize the ->busy check so it's just one function to review that common constraint.
| |