netdev - Re: [PATCH V3 03/10] PCI/TPH: Add pci=notph to prevent use of TPH

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: <20240724153627.GA800043@bhelgaas>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 10:36:27 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Alejandro Lucero Palau <alucerop@....com>
Cc: Wei Huang <wei.huang2@....com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com, corbet@....net,
	davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
	pabeni@...hat.com, alex.williamson@...hat.com, gospo@...adcom.com,
	michael.chan@...adcom.com, ajit.khaparde@...adcom.com,
	somnath.kotur@...adcom.com, andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com,
	manoj.panicker2@....com, Eric.VanTassell@....com,
	vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev, horms@...nel.org, bagasdotme@...il.com,
	bhelgaas@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 03/10] PCI/TPH: Add pci=notph to prevent use of TPH

On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 03:45:34PM +0100, Alejandro Lucero Palau wrote:
> On 7/17/24 21:55, Wei Huang wrote:
> > TLP headers with incorrect steering tags (e.g. caused by buggy driver)
> > can potentially cause issues when the system hardware consumes the tags.
> > Provide a kernel option, with related helper functions, to completely
> > prevent TPH from being enabled.
> 
> Maybe rephrase it for including a potential buggy device, including the cpu.
> 
> Also, what about handling this with a no-tph-allow device list instead of a
> generic binary option for the whole system?
> 
> Foreseeing some buggy or poor-performance implementations, or specific use
> cases where it could be counterproductive, maybe supporting both options.

Makes sense if/when we need it.  IMO no point in adding an empty list
of known-broken devices.