Hello Bjorn,
On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 4:30 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 03:31:47PM -0700, Rajat Jain wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 9:38 AM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 09:49:38PM -0700, Rajat Jain wrote:
>
> > > > -static void pci_acpi_set_untrusted(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > > > +static void pci_acpi_set_external_facing(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > > > {
> > > > u8 val;
> > > >
> > > > - if (pci_pcie_type(dev) != PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT)
> > > > + if (pci_pcie_type(dev) != PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT &&
> > > > + pci_pcie_type(dev) != PCI_EXP_TYPE_DOWNSTREAM)
> > >
> > > This looks like a change worthy of its own patch. We used to look for
> > > "ExternalFacingPort" only on Root Ports; now we'll also do it for
> > > Switch Downstream Ports.
> >
> > Can do. (please see below)
> >
> > > Can you include DT and ACPI spec references if they exist? I found
> > > this mention:
> > > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/pci/dsd-for-pcie-root-ports
> > > which actually says it should only be implemented for Root Ports.
> >
> > I actually have no references. It seems to me that the microsoft spec
> > assumes that all external ports must be implemented on root ports, but
> > I think it would be equally fair for systems with PCIe switches to
> > implement one on one of their switch downstream ports. I don't have an
> > immediate use of this anyway, so if you think this should rather wait
> > unless someone really has this case, this can wait. Let me know.
>
> I agree that it "makes sense" to pay attention to this property no
> matter where it appears, but since that Microsoft doc went to the
> trouble to restrict it to Root Ports, I think we should leave this
> as-is and only look for it in the Root Port. Otherwise Linux will
> accept something Windows will reject, and that seems like a needless
> difference.
>
> We can at least include the above link to the Microsoft doc in the
> commit log.
Will do.
>
> > > It also mentions a "DmaProperty" that looks related. Maybe Linux
> > > should also pay attention to this?
> >
> > Interesting. Since this is not in use currently by the kernel as well
> > as not exposed by (our) BIOS, I don't have an immediate use case for
> > this. I'd like to defer this for later (as-the-need-arises).
>
> I agree, you can defer this until you see a need for it. I just
> pointed it out in case it would be useful to you.
>
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Devices are marked as external-facing using info from platform
> > > > + * (ACPI / devicetree). An external-facing device is still an internal
> > > > + * trusted device, but it faces external untrusted devices. Thus any
> > > > + * devices enumerated downstream an external-facing device is marked
> > > > + * as untrusted.
> > >
> > > This comment has a subject/verb agreement problem.
> >
> > I assume you meant s/is/are/ in last sentence. Will do.
>
> Right. There's also something wrong with "enumerated downstream an".
I'm apparently really bad at English :-). This is what I have in my
latest patch I am about to send out:
"Thus any device enumerated downstream an external-facing device, is
marked as untrusted."
Are you suggesting s/an/a/ ? Please let me know what you would like to
see and I'd copy it as-is :-)
Thanks!
Rajat
