linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PCI: ACPI: Allow internal devices to be marked as untrusted

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: <Ye/X7E2dKb+zem34@lahna>
Date:   Tue, 25 Jan 2022 12:58:52 +0200
From:   Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc:     Rajat Jain <rajatja@...gle.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rajatxjain@...il.com,
        dtor@...gle.com, jsbarnes@...gle.com,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>,
        Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@...il.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: ACPI: Allow internal devices to be marked as
 untrusted

On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 08:27:17AM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > This patch introduces a new "UntrustedDevice" property that can be used
> > > by the firmware to mark any device as untrusted.
> 
> I think this new property should be documented somewhere too (also
> explain when to use it instead of ExternalFacingPort). If not in the
> next ACPI spec or some supplemental doc then perhaps in the DT bindings
> under Documentation/devicetree/bindings.

Actually Microsoft has similar already:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/pci/dsd-for-pcie-root-ports#identifying-internal-pcie-ports-accessible-to-users-and-requiring-dma-protection

I think we should use that too here.