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? > 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. thanks, greg k-h
