[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200701110813.GA11023@amd>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 13:08:13 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>, Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@...gle.com>,
Rajat Jain <rajatja@...gle.com>,
Rajat Jain <rajatxjain@...il.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"Krishnakumar, Lalithambika" <lalithambika.krishnakumar@...el.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
Prashant Malani <pmalani@...gle.com>,
Benson Leung <bleung@...gle.com>,
Todd Broch <tbroch@...gle.com>,
Alex Levin <levinale@...gle.com>,
Mattias Nissler <mnissler@...gle.com>,
Zubin Mithra <zsm@...gle.com>,
Bernie Keany <bernie.keany@...el.com>,
Aaron Durbin <adurbin@...gle.com>,
Diego Rivas <diegorivas@...gle.com>,
Duncan Laurie <dlaurie@...gle.com>,
Furquan Shaikh <furquan@...gle.com>,
Christian Kellner <christian@...lner.me>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Restrict the untrusted devices, to bind to only a set of
"whitelisted" drivers
Hi!
> > > Yes, it originally was designed that way, but again, the world has
> > > changed so we have to change with it. That is why USB has for a long
> > > time now, allowed you to not bind drivers to devices that you do not
> > > "trust", and that trust can be determined by userspace. That all came
> > > about thanks to the work done by the wireless USB spec people and kernel
> > > authors, which showed that maybe you just don't want to trust any device
> > > that comes within range of your system :)
> >
> > Again, not disagreeing; but note the scale here.
> >
> > It is mandatory to defend against malicious wireless USB devices.
>
> Turns out there are no more wireless USB devices in the world, and the
> code for that is gone from Linux :)
>
> > We probably should work on robustness against malicious USB devices.
>
> We are, and do have, that support today.
>
> > Malicious PCI-express devices are lot less of concern.
>
> Not really, they are a lot of concern to some people. Valid attacks are
> out there today, see the thunderbolt attacks that numerous people have
> done and published recently and for many years.
In this case PCI-express meant internal cards in PCs. Yes, thunderbolt
would be higher concern than internal card.
> > Defending against malicious CPU/RAM does not make much sense.
>
> That's what the spectre and rowhammer fixes have been for :)
Yeah, and that's why we have whitelist of working CPUs and only work
on those, riiight? :-). [There's difference between "malicious" and
"buggy".]
Pavel
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists