From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan Cox Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] drm: Add Content Protection property Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:30:52 +0000 Message-ID: <20171207143052.533e1e94@alans-desktop> References: <20171130030907.26848-1-seanpaul@chromium.org> <20171130030907.26848-2-seanpaul@chromium.org> <20171205102840.GB12982@amd> <20171205104538.b4fxdjad3c46koas@phenom.ffwll.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20171205104538.b4fxdjad3c46koas@phenom.ffwll.local> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Daniel Vetter Cc: David Airlie , intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, Pavel Machek , Daniel Vetter , Sean Paul , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org > If you want to actually lock down a machine to implement content > protection, then you need secure boot without unlockable boot-loader and a > pile more bits in userspace. So let me take my Intel hat off for a moment. The upstream policy has always been that we don't merge things which don't have an open usable user space. Is the HDCP encryption feature useful on its own ? What do users get from it ? If this is just an enabler for a lump of binary stuff in ChromeOS then I don't think it belongs, if it is useful standalone then it seems it does belong ? Alan From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:30:52 +0000 Subject: [RFC PATCH 1/6] drm: Add Content Protection property In-Reply-To: <20171205104538.b4fxdjad3c46koas@phenom.ffwll.local> References: <20171130030907.26848-1-seanpaul@chromium.org> <20171130030907.26848-2-seanpaul@chromium.org> <20171205102840.GB12982@amd> <20171205104538.b4fxdjad3c46koas@phenom.ffwll.local> Message-ID: <20171207143052.533e1e94@alans-desktop> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > If you want to actually lock down a machine to implement content > protection, then you need secure boot without unlockable boot-loader and a > pile more bits in userspace. So let me take my Intel hat off for a moment. The upstream policy has always been that we don't merge things which don't have an open usable user space. Is the HDCP encryption feature useful on its own ? What do users get from it ? If this is just an enabler for a lump of binary stuff in ChromeOS then I don't think it belongs, if it is useful standalone then it seems it does belong ? Alan From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754040AbdLGOb3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Dec 2017 09:31:29 -0500 Received: from www.llwyncelyn.cymru ([82.70.14.225]:56576 "EHLO fuzix.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753309AbdLGOb1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Dec 2017 09:31:27 -0500 Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:30:52 +0000 From: Alan Cox To: Daniel Vetter Cc: Pavel Machek , Sean Paul , David Airlie , intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Daniel Vetter , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] drm: Add Content Protection property Message-ID: <20171207143052.533e1e94@alans-desktop> In-Reply-To: <20171205104538.b4fxdjad3c46koas@phenom.ffwll.local> References: <20171130030907.26848-1-seanpaul@chromium.org> <20171130030907.26848-2-seanpaul@chromium.org> <20171205102840.GB12982@amd> <20171205104538.b4fxdjad3c46koas@phenom.ffwll.local> Organization: Intel Corporation X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.15.1-dirty (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > If you want to actually lock down a machine to implement content > protection, then you need secure boot without unlockable boot-loader and a > pile more bits in userspace. So let me take my Intel hat off for a moment. The upstream policy has always been that we don't merge things which don't have an open usable user space. Is the HDCP encryption feature useful on its own ? What do users get from it ? If this is just an enabler for a lump of binary stuff in ChromeOS then I don't think it belongs, if it is useful standalone then it seems it does belong ? Alan