Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 31 Jan 2022 08:41:36 +0200
From:   Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc:     Rajat Jain <rajatja@google.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux PCI <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Rajat Jain <rajatxjain@gmail.com>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@google.com>,
        Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@google.com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de>,
        Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@gmail.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: ACPI: Allow internal devices to be marked as
 untrusted
Message-ID: <YfeEoF35RPDVMdzD@lahna>
References: <20220121214117.GA1154852@bhelgaas>
 <Ye5GvQbFKo+CFtRb@lahna>
 <Ye/X7E2dKb+zem34@lahna>
 <Ye/btvA1rLB2rp02@kroah.com>
 <Ye/zTHR5aCG58z87@lahna>
 <CAJZ5v0gitdeEAxcgSoB1=VHA9FnRdCtmUqA_cN_f1a2yFRDghQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACK8Z6H2DLTJgxgS3pcvfOh=5S8cxEMKvwEPfB9zoVf1g2H_UQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <YfOf2X7Snm7cvDRV@lahna>
 <CACK8Z6FMgc5UQY-ZGB9sKYR5Wt6L6huTnEKZaFyVRAmDmQt9XQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJZ5v0iuM_qjhPxvhzgvtKM-4pBB2skf9G=R=Qo6NzKnZ2LN=w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0iuM_qjhPxvhzgvtKM-4pBB2skf9G=R=Qo6NzKnZ2LN=w@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 03:30:39PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I'm open to doing so if the others also feel the same way. IMHO
> > though, the semantics of ACPI "DmaProperty" differ from the semantics
> > of the property I'm proposing here.
> >
> > The current (documented) semantics (of "DmaProperty"): *This device
> > (root port) is trusted*, but any devices downstream are not to be
> > trusted.
> >
> > What I need and am proposing (new "UntrustedDevice"): *This device as
> > well as any downstream devices* are untrusted.
> >
> > Note that there may be firmware implementing "DmaProperty" already out
> > there (for windows), and if we decide to use it for my purposes, then
> > there shall be a discrepancy in how Linux uses that property vs
> > Windows. Is that acceptable?
> 
> It may be confusing, so I'd rather not do that.
> 
> The platform firmware will use it with the Windows use case in mind
> and if it has side effects in Linux, problems are likely to appear in
> the field.
> 
> So the question is rather not about it being acceptable, but about
> whether or not this is generally going to work.

I was kind of implying that we could perhaps contact Microsoft and ask
them if the wording could be changed to cover all the devices, not just
PCIe root ports. I think this is something they will also need for
things like internal WI-FI controllers.

If that's not possible then no objections adding "UntrustedDevice". We
just need to deal with the "DmaProperty" anyway and both end up setting
pdev->untrusted in the similar manner.