linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] PCI / ACPI: Identify untrusted 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: <20181128113952.GX2296@lahna.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Nov 2018 13:39:52 +0200
From:   Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     "open list:AMD IOMMU (AMD-VI)" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        "Pan, Jacob jun" <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
        Andreas Noever <andreas.noever@...il.com>,
        Michael Jamet <michael.jamet@...el.com>,
        Yehezkel Bernat <YehezkelShB@...il.com>,
        Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>, ckellner@...hat.com,
        Mario Limonciello <Mario.Limonciello@...l.com>,
        Anthony Wong <anthony.wong@...onical.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] PCI / ACPI: Identify untrusted PCI devices

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:24:27PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> I'm not sure if this is worth the extra complexity either, which is
> why I have no strong opinion here. :-)
> 
> Maybe you can add a comment, next to the prp_guids[] definition, to
> explain that the GUIDs are made equivalent to each other in order to
> avoid extra complexity in the properties handling code, with the
> caveat that the kernel will accept certain combinations of GUIDs and
> properties that are not defined strictly speaking without warning, but
> those combinations of GUIDs and properties are not expected to be used
> by firmware and they should be caught by firmware validation tools and
> reported as errors anyway.

Sure, I'll add the comment in the next version of the series.