Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:1a4d:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id nk13csp902788pxb; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 12:49:13 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwgDQY17VKp8sl8c6wGxzphRbcPPeFAvmeKHznB6hjjtaqYueeNnmvLtSNo7M/gSC5YIvpb X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:72d6:: with SMTP id du22mr22665339ejc.179.1643748553168; Tue, 01 Feb 2022 12:49:13 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1643748553; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=01kPf2OXcEvfdaIeBju9/Tu8ztzWhaTTuu1kUjtW1vxZ/yNnk2NU2ImFMVu5hcK4xu 1hoMbDhOyYFL1dEJnnttFzKwNfMCDVXAb9I7xqkVjsLNVLj1ca3ierA9yj1biIIzd8fd qqA9vGhNfaNOL4XZlwrRKA5+FxmuKjHHd6AM4/ci+I5gOP5xgBTULA+G9Fiv+fnS2wWa bjlJX1Jyr0buVXUq1VRPQvVwJRNKBH8OHt934XnG+EipZ9UgF/Ca3qTImqfiLZc5e33y qM/slHtKVsd6HnMx9P/nrmuFRE5E5vFbg5fyapqlZUtkqrk3UbgAEZG6SsLF7hcpJMJV zlsg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=PxxRAP314jDSGXiVlWBZyKjdy+DN2lrBrDJCppTsFgM=; b=ITdR9W91uyapL4UpuSYPgwPZSb7YuMgec3ors8I5qXxeDTcDpQIOo0OAthnH17wCIn uSt6TwxHBxgwuHO+keMfUrQeU7xjp9IWneVLUix0IufJlzQnUy5zvKnC8CDJ1Z7Kf/xO ACd0R6daLP2cC7Ys6DBhHHEVds48B/1B1EO91OdfFZcOvFyDCmNgmJP1PQGvyOS1phjO tb4ddqllnifacFkPfGld/l89DgOmzTqcYvK+XCxjO5xZnmI8KyPvryvOBplpAv5m3iZy eA4GSIYzaYWOKVKU5egOWCX+yS1khkZkL/RFw1a6y/rh/gQCz9JoNCzfoxNTOour2t8N 1GcA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@google.com header.s=20210112 header.b=WdF4V2p0; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=google.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id nd2si9792442ejc.147.2022.02.01.12.48.48; Tue, 01 Feb 2022 12:49:13 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@google.com header.s=20210112 header.b=WdF4V2p0; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=google.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1377836AbiAaT6A (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 31 Jan 2022 14:58:00 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:56504 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1377819AbiAaT5i (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jan 2022 14:57:38 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-x102d.google.com (mail-pj1-x102d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102d]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8BCDC061741 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2022 11:57:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pj1-x102d.google.com with SMTP id z14-20020a17090ab10e00b001b6175d4040so236526pjq.0 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2022 11:57:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=PxxRAP314jDSGXiVlWBZyKjdy+DN2lrBrDJCppTsFgM=; b=WdF4V2p0Y7jszFxrF6/IZtcSS1/fMQSWE4SLUKzohrF0Eiu8PUD2Gsuu4DKOdKctwv F0/I2WtBj5j9qyMK2Ud8QJsMKcphaDnL0YcMacaTfmwam7F7WP6s4F4iKO4JhUoUZnST S79gZWRdEqg8m1tWf2vNWoVAs+hh/pwEyqR1Z/V9uOC3VEFDLN3iMWqYfkZuplgL7zk3 O9GbK/PPyVuwrOlhHet3TuEpTGfeXnbq6FkykZEnhhZqnTa0ZVswJkKr5qHH2b40DweJ 4STK4nP4GCUVJCE+qWSZeMZLlBBvq3YQCz754/ou+jXXgWohdKZfKlw2uKZRKbmH9mG+ I9kw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=PxxRAP314jDSGXiVlWBZyKjdy+DN2lrBrDJCppTsFgM=; b=qOfrfNIFTf8YY9DFBK9tSkQdFN7ZzvwRnMUdWVpZcjaILVpTIy6Zoeow/oRmkGZeY5 LjB7kFtzJcy3aovETzMS+jfvipeRD0iYQkYlc5RXGBiQtcQSX6looa7aM8SnGUcwVazc OieTxxd0uPUsiNNwGfXgd/sfc5dObo3p6X2xlISyfsy4lSKXOovRxVN/8chnK9rdxTNE buOWIUBKx+aSsBeGVpu+/R54+OAXHUT1+uUn+YULvpS4OQi2pzL4d5G/on4XUOdx0iPB VX1ykUGAv3mkkysJkxPnaUAK6MmSGkqF/8MLYsZNrSdZEhG4qbTRqLlO7ju/wUnnSHJE uRYQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531XFbhjBRAJu8RdLrmbPv8X6aEShstiwv4ZvXHH3IHaEFMK5ByP uBojMKLEt0j2PaP8vciTOVEdyHweWmdNs1cRqDgcBonJiPE= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:348f:: with SMTP id p15mr5931910pjb.173.1643659057200; Mon, 31 Jan 2022 11:57:37 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220121214117.GA1154852@bhelgaas> In-Reply-To: From: Rajat Jain Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 11:57:00 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: ACPI: Allow internal devices to be marked as untrusted To: Mika Westerberg Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Bjorn Helgaas , Len Brown , Bjorn Helgaas , ACPI Devel Maling List , Linux PCI , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Rajat Jain , Dmitry Torokhov , Jesse Barnes , Jean-Philippe Brucker , Pavel Machek , "Oliver O'Halloran" , Joerg Roedel Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello Mika, Rafael, On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:42 PM Mika Westerberg wrote: > > 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. We (Chromeos) do not have a contact at Microsoft, not sure if Intel does. If someone can point me to a contact I will be happy to initiate a conversation. However, given that they have already published it, and changing the semantics might mean they will also have to change windows implementation. Not sure if we have enough leverage with Microsoft here, so I wouldn't have any high hopes though. Like Rafael said, we're on the receiving end here. Rafael, one last question: is "untrusted-device" an acceptable ACPI property name, or does it have to be Camel case? Thanks & Best Regards, Rajat > > 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.