linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 1/1] Intel Sky Lake-E host root ports check.

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220328143813.GT1342626@nvidia.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Mar 2022 11:38:13 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To:     Shlomo Pongratz <shlomopongratz@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        andrew.maier@...eticom.com, logang@...tatee.com,
        bhelgaas@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/1] Intel Sky Lake-E host root ports check.

On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 05:35:36PM +0300, Shlomo Pongratz wrote:
> Hi Jason,
> 
> Thank you for your comments I'll fix the spelling mistakes.
> 
> You suggested to remove the port field and to ignore the slot number for root ports,
> and I understand the reasoning, but, from safety reasons, if we know that device 2030
> will always be found on slot 0 and 2032 for example will always be found on slot 2
> wouldn't it be prudent to compare the device number vs the port number,
> unless you believe that the BIOS/ACPI issue will be fixed.

I'm not sure that is guaranteed, it seems like a BIOS choice..

IMHO what we know is that if we see those devices then we are on a
Skylake-E already and we don't really need more checks.

Jason