On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:36 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:12:56AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:56 PM Rajat Jain <rajatja@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:31 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > (and likely call it "external" instead of "untrusted". > > > > Which is not okay. 'External' to what? 'untrusted' has been carefully > > chosen by the meaning of it. > > What external does mean for M.2. WWAN card in my laptop? It's in ACPI > > tables, but I can replace it. > > Then your ACPI tables should show this, there is an attribute for it, > right? There is a _PLD() method, but it's for the USB devices (or optional for others, I don't remember by heart). So, most of the ACPI tables, alas, don't show this. > > This is only one example. Or if firmware of some device is altered, > > and it's internal (whatever it means) is it trusted or not? > > That is what people are using policy for today, if you object to this, > please bring it up to those developers :) > > So, please leave it as is (I mean name). > > firmware today exports this attribute, why do you not want userspace to > also know it? > > Trust is different, yes, don't get the two mixed up please. That should > be a different sysfs attribute for obvious reasons. Yes, as a bottom line that's what I meant as well. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
