Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Syscall review #4205

Open
TychoVrahe opened this issue Sep 23, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

Syscall review #4205

TychoVrahe opened this issue Sep 23, 2024 · 2 comments
Labels
code Code improvements

Comments

@TychoVrahe
Copy link
Contributor

TychoVrahe commented Sep 23, 2024

Followup for #4188

We added (most of) syscalls to match the current usage in firmware, but this is not necessarily correct.

Some of them might be too low-level and deserve redesign, these are main candidates:

  • storage initialization: probably should be done in kernel, and not exposed to coreapp at all
  • sdcard syscalls - maybe we should expose higher level functions instead, so that coreapp doesn't have access to all data on the SD card
  • hash processor syscalls - again, maybe we shouldn't expose raw sha256 syscalls, which are needed for firmware header info in coreapp, but perhaps introduce the firmware header info syscall?
  • USB syscalls - rethink initializtion, add arguments validation
  • display, bitblt - add validation

But we should reconsider more or less each syscall so that we don't expose stuff we don't really need to.

@TychoVrahe TychoVrahe added the code Code improvements label Sep 23, 2024
@matejcik
Copy link
Contributor

  • hash processor syscalls - again, maybe we shouldn't expose raw sha256 syscalls, which are needed for firmware header info in coreapp, but perhaps introduce the firmware header info syscall?

we also want to be able to accelerate general sha256 usage so if the sha256 syscalls are "secure" in that they don't interfere with one another, we want to keep this

@TychoVrahe
Copy link
Contributor Author

That is also related to #3638 and also in principle to #4212

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
code Code improvements
Projects
Status: No status
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants