Hi! > > > Yes, it originally was designed that way, but again, the world has > > > changed so we have to change with it. That is why USB has for a long > > > time now, allowed you to not bind drivers to devices that you do not > > > "trust", and that trust can be determined by userspace. That all came > > > about thanks to the work done by the wireless USB spec people and kernel > > > authors, which showed that maybe you just don't want to trust any device > > > that comes within range of your system :) > > > > Again, not disagreeing; but note the scale here. > > > > It is mandatory to defend against malicious wireless USB devices. > > Turns out there are no more wireless USB devices in the world, and the > code for that is gone from Linux :) > > > We probably should work on robustness against malicious USB devices. > > We are, and do have, that support today. > > > Malicious PCI-express devices are lot less of concern. > > Not really, they are a lot of concern to some people. Valid attacks are > out there today, see the thunderbolt attacks that numerous people have > done and published recently and for many years. In this case PCI-express meant internal cards in PCs. Yes, thunderbolt would be higher concern than internal card. > > Defending against malicious CPU/RAM does not make much sense. > > That's what the spectre and rowhammer fixes have been for :) Yeah, and that's why we have whitelist of working CPUs and only work on those, riiight? :-). [There's difference between "malicious" and "buggy".] Pavel -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
