linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] PCI / ACPI: Identify external PCI devices

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: <20181115121627.GA2500@lahna.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Nov 2018 14:16:27 +0200
From:   Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
Cc:     Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Jacob jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
        Andreas Noever <andreas.noever@...il.com>,
        Michael Jamet <michael.jamet@...el.com>,
        Yehezkel Bernat <YehezkelShB@...il.com>,
        Christian Kellner <ckellner@...hat.com>,
        Mario.Limonciello@...l.com,
        Anthony Wong <anthony.wong@...onical.com>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] PCI / ACPI: Identify external PCI devices

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 01:07:36PM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 01:37:37PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:13:56AM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > I have strong objections to the way these bindings have been forced upon
> > > everybody; if that's the way *generic* ACPI bindings are specified I
> > > wonder why there still exists an ACPI specification and related working
> > > group.
> > > 
> > > I personally (but that's Bjorn and Rafael choice) think that this is
> > > not a change that belongs in PCI core, ACPI bindings are ill-defined
> > > and device tree bindings are non-existing.
> > 
> > Any idea where should I put it then? These systems are already out there
> > and we need to support them one way or another.
> 
> I suppose those are all Thunderbolt, so could be handled by the
> existing ->is_thunderbolt bit?
> 
> It was said in this thread that ->is_external is more generic in
> that it could also be used on PCIe slots, however that use case
> doesn't appear to lend itself to the "plug in while laptop owner
> is getting coffee" attack.  To access PCIe slots on a server you
> normally need access to a data center.  On a desktop, you usually
> have to open the case, by which time the coffee may already have
> been fetched.  So frankly the binding seems a bit over-engineered
> to me and yet another thing that BIOS writers may get wrong.

I would not say it should include PCIe slots but there are other cables
that carry PCIe and I was thinking we could make it to support those as
well.

I have no problem using is_thunderbolt here, though if we don't want to
support non-Thunderbolt external devices this way.

However, the question here is more that where I should put the _DSD
parsing code if it is not suitable to be placed inside PCI/ACPI core as
I've done in this patch? ;-)