linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/6] Resolve unwanted DMA backing with IOMMU

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4850389.K9ByBxYttl@dimapc>
Date:   Fri, 27 Jul 2018 23:02:01 +0300
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To:     Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Mikko Perttunen <cyndis@...si.fi>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>, bskeggs@...hat.com,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, kwizart@...il.com,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Linux IOMMU <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/6] Resolve unwanted DMA backing with IOMMU

On Friday, 27 July 2018 21:31:34 MSK Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 11:13:31AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > I don't follow why we need a property rather than being implied by the
> > device's (the GPU) compatible string.
> 
> There might be devices where either setup works, with or without IOMMU
> translation, and the firmware can set the property depending on whether
> the user wants more performance or more security.
> 
> If we have a whitelist in the kernel this gets more complicated, we
> probably need additional kernel-parameters to overwrite those whitelist
> entries. Having a property in the device-tree seems to be a better way
> here, imho.

IIUC, device-tree should be considered to be "written in stone" for a consumer 
device and hence firmware property isn't something that could be easily 
changed. The kernel-parameter will be much more universal. Anyway the global 
whitelisting should be a different topic for discussion, right now we need a 
kind of private whitelisting that is internal to kernel.