linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] PCI: Relabel JHL6540 on Lenovo X1 Carbon 7,8

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: <20240424085608.GE112498@black.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 11:56:08 +0300
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
Cc: Esther Shimanovich <eshimanovich@...omium.org>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Rajat Jain <rajatja@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] PCI: Relabel JHL6540 on Lenovo X1 Carbon 7,8

On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 11:59:36AM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> On 4/23/2024 00:33, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 02:21:18PM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> > > On 4/22/2024 14:17, Esther Shimanovich wrote:
> > > > Thanks for the explanation! I still don't fully understand how that
> > > > would work for my use case.
> > > > 
> > > > Perhaps it would be better for me to describe the case I am trying to
> > > > protect against.
> > > > 
> > > > To rehash, this quirk was written for devices with discrete
> > > > Thunderbolt controllers.
> > > > 
> > > > For example,
> > > > CometLake_CPU -> AlpineRidge_Chip -> USB-C Port
> > > > This device has the ExternalFacingPort property in ACPI.
> > > > My quirk relabels the Alpine Ridge chip as "fixed" and
> > > > external-facing, so that devices attached to the USB-C port could be
> > > > labeled as "removable"
> > > > 
> > > > Let's say we have a TigerLake CPU, which has integrated
> > > > Thunderbolt/USB4 capabilities:
> > > > 
> > > > TigerLake_ThunderboltCPU -> USB-C Port
> > > > This device also has the ExternalFacingPort property in ACPI and lacks
> > > > the usb4-host-interface property in the ACPI.
> > > > 
> > > > My worry is that someone could take an Alpine Ridge Chip Thunderbolt
> > > > Dock and attach it to the TigerLake CPU
> > > > 
> > > > TigerLake_ThunderboltCPU -> USB-C Port -> AlpineRidge_Dock
> > > > 
> > > > If that were to happen, this quirk would incorrectly label the Alpine
> > > > Ridge Dock as "fixed" instead of "removable".
> > > > 
> > > > My thinking was that we could prevent this scenario from occurring if
> > > > we filtered this quirk not to apply on CPU's like Tiger Lake, with
> > > > integrated Thunderbolt/USB4 capabilities.
> > > > 
> > > > ExternalFacingPort is found both on the Comet Lake ACPI and also on
> > > > the Tiger Lake ACPI. So I can't use that to distinguish between CPUs
> > > > which don't have integrated Thunderbolt, like Comet Lake, and CPUs
> > > > with integrated Thunderbolt, like Tiger Lake.
> > > > 
> > > > I am looking for something that can tell me if the device's Root Port
> > > > has the Thunderbolt controller upstream to it or not.
> > > > Is there anything like that?
> > > > Or perhaps should I add a check which compares the name of the
> > > > device's CPU with a list of CPUs that this quirk can be applied to?
> > > > Or is there some way I can identify the Thunderbolt controller, then
> > > > determine if it's upstream or downstream from the root port?
> > > > Or are Alpine Ridge docks not something to worry about at all?
> > > 
> > > My thought was once you have a device as untrusted, everything else
> > > connected to it should "also" be untrusted.
> > 
> > I think what you are looking for is that anything behind a PCIe tunnel
> > should not have this applied. IIRC the AMD GPU or some code there were
> > going to add identification of "virtual" links to the bandwidth
> > calculation functionality.
> > 
> > @Mario, do you remember if this was done already and if that could maybe
> > be re-used here?
> 
> Yeah there was a series that I worked on a few spins a while back
> specifically in the context of eGPUs to identify virtual links and take them
> out of bandwidth calculations.
> 
> It didn't get merged, I recall it got stalled on various feedback and I
> didn't dust it off because the series also did prompt discussions about the
> reasoning that amdgpu was doing this in the first place.  It turned out to
> be a bad assumption in the code and I instead made a change to amdgpu to not
> look at the whole topology but just the link partner
> (466a7d115326ece682c2b60d1c77d1d0b9010b4f if anyone is curious).

Okay that makes sense. Thanks!