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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Tue, 25 Jan 2022 12:15:02 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        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,
        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 Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 12:58:52PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> 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.

But we do not have "dma protection" for Linux, so how will that value
make sense?

And shouldn't this be an ACPI standard?

thanks,

greg k-h