[PATCH v3 0/7] dma-buf: heaps: Add secure heap

[Simon Ser]

On Wednesday, December 13th, 2023 at 15:16, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> wrote:

> > > It is protected/shielded/fortified from all the kernel and userspace,
> > > but a more familiar word to describe that is inaccessible.
> > > "Inaccessible buffer" per se OTOH sounds like a useless concept.
> > > 
> > > It is not secure, because it does not involve security in any way. In
> > > fact, given it's so fragile, I'd classify it as mildly opposite of
> > > secure, as e.g. clients of a Wayland compositor can potentially DoS the
> > > compositor with it by simply sending such a dmabuf. Or DoS the whole
> > > system.
> > 
> > I hear what you are saying and DoS is a known problem and attack vector,
> > but regardless, we have use cases where we don't want to expose
> > information in the clear and where we also would like to have some
> > guarantees about correctness. That is where various secure elements and
> > more generally security is needed.
> > 
> > So, it sounds like we have two things here, the first is the naming and
> > the meaning behind it. I'm pretty sure the people following and
> > contributing to this thread can agree on a name that makes sense. Would
> > you personally be OK with "restricted" as the name? It sounds like that.
> 
> I would. I'm also just a by-stander, not a maintainer of kernel
> anything. I have no power to accept nor reject anything here.

I'd also personally be OK with "restricted", I think it's a lot better
than "secure".

In general I agree with everything Pekka said.