Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
 <YfeEoF35RPDVMdzD@lahna> <CACK8Z6EBbdPHhMtD+vMWs54GRw-ChCeNNfeKM4Hk5JcAqex6hg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACK8Z6EBbdPHhMtD+vMWs54GRw-ChCeNNfeKM4Hk5JcAqex6hg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Rajat Jain <rajatja@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 1 Feb 2022 18:05:58 -0800
Message-ID: <CACK8Z6ET81wSUu_kyMHx88OUPvicMoxMejYp_0vwRGP75urFrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: ACPI: Allow internal devices to be marked as untrusted
To:     Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 11:57 AM Rajat Jain <rajatja@google.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Mika, Rafael,
>
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:42 PM Mika Westerberg
> <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> 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.

To keep everyone updated, Mika has helped me initiate a conversation
with Microsoft on this (Thanks a lot Mika!). We're still waiting to
hear their feedback. Until then, I've posted a v2 for review at:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-pci/patch/20220202020103.2149130-1-rajatja@google.com/

If we can reach an agreement with Microsoft, I can change the property
name in the patch (to "DmaProperty"), but would appreciate review of
any other aspects of v2 in the meantime.

Thanks & Best Regards,

Rajat


> 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.