Hi MIka,
Thanks for taking a look.
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 2:50 AM Mika Westerberg
<mika.westerb...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 10:45:17PM -0700, Rajat Jain wrote:
> > Currently, an external malicious PCI device can masquerade the VID:PID
> > of faulty gfx devices, and thus apply iommu quirks to effectively
> > disable the IOMMU restrictions for itself.
> >
> > Thus we need to ensure that the device we are applying quirks to, is
> > indeed an internal trusted device.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rajat Jain <raja...@google.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c
> > index ef0a5246700e5..f2a480168a02f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c
> > @@ -6214,6 +6214,11 @@ const struct iommu_ops intel_iommu_ops = {
> >
> > static void quirk_iommu_igfx(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > {
> > + if (dev->untrusted) {
> > + pci_warn(dev, "skipping iommu quirk for untrusted gfx dev\n");
>
> I think you should be consistent with other messages. For example iommu
> should be spelled IOMMU as done below.
>
> Also this is visible to users so maybe put bit more information there:
>
> pci_warn(dev, "Will not apply IOMMU quirk for untrusted graphics device\n");
>
> Ditto for all the other places. Also is "untrusted" good word here? If
> an ordinary user sees this will it trigger some sort of panic reaction.
> Perhaps we should call it "potentially untrusted" or something like
> that?
Fixed it, posted new patch at
https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/2/822
Thanks,
Rajat
>
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > pci_info(dev, "Disabling IOMMU for graphics on this chipset\n");
> > dmar_map_gfx = 0;
