Re: Linux and IBM : "unauthorized" mini-PCI : TCPA updates

Re: Linux and IBM : "unauthorized" mini-PCI : TCPA updates

[Mark Grosberg]

> Firstly IBM seem to claim the device supports mini-PCI but their public
> details do not make it clear IBM only allow its use with certain
> components so its not true mini-PCI - thats advertising and sales of
> goods happy lawsuit time, and remarkably careless.

Maybe there is a less evil explanation for this?

This is hypothetical, but before people go off and do something rash,
perhaps IBM prevents the card from booting for a technical reason. Maybe
it works electrically but in late testing they found it caused thermal or
electrical problems.

A quick fix would be to put a "do-not-boot" clause in the BIOS so the user
doesn't cook their machine.

Just a perspective from a (former) hardware person.

L8r,
Mark G.

Re: Linux and IBM : "unauthorized" mini-PCI : TCPA updates

[Mike Dresser]

On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Mark Grosberg wrote:

> Maybe there is a less evil explanation for this?
>
> This is hypothetical, but before people go off and do something rash,
> perhaps IBM prevents the card from booting for a technical reason. Maybe
> it works electrically but in late testing they found it caused thermal or
> electrical problems.

There was a thread here(i think) recently about wirless causing problems
with other frequencies, and that you could only broadcast in a specific
set of frequencies.  I assume this is related to what IBM has done.

Mike

Re: Linux and IBM : "unauthorized" mini-PCI : TCPA updates

[Josh Litherland]

In article <Pine.LNX.4.33.0306031538590.10095-100000@router.windsormachine.com> you wrote:

> There was a thread here(i think) recently about wirless causing problems
> with other frequencies, and that you could only broadcast in a specific
> set of frequencies.  I assume this is related to what IBM has done.

The cards we were testing were 11b, so they wouldn't fall under the
banner of any evil frequency hopping device.  Crippling the PCI slot to
prevent use of a card that could potentially break FCC regs provided
someone uses nonexistant published specs to develop an as-yet
nonexistant driver seems a might rash, don'tcha think ?

-- 
Josh Litherland (josh@emperorlinux.com)

Re: Linux and IBM : "unauthorized" mini-PCI : TCPA updates

[Mike Dresser]

On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Josh Litherland wrote:

> The cards we were testing were 11b, so they wouldn't fall under the
> banner of any evil frequency hopping device.  Crippling the PCI slot to
> prevent use of a card that could potentially break FCC regs provided
> someone uses nonexistant published specs to develop an as-yet
> nonexistant driver seems a might rash, don'tcha think ?

IBM:

Left hand(linux), right hand(hardware guys).  Any questions?

and to throw this in:

SCO:

Both hands in everyone elses wallet.

Mike

Re: Linux and IBM : "unauthorized" mini-PCI : TCPA updates

[Josh Litherland]

In article <Pine.LNX.4.33.0306031638530.6004-100000@router.windsormachine.com> you wrote:

> Left hand(linux), right hand(hardware guys).

-nod-  Honestly, this is what we suspect as well.  We've been climbing
the usual support ladders with IBM for several days now, so we're still
hoping for a cooperative resolution from them.

-- 
Josh Litherland (josh@emperorlinux.com)

Re: Linux and IBM : "unauthorized" mini-PCI : TCPA updates

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 12:49:34PM -0400, Lincoln Durey wrote:
> 
> As I gather more info, it becomes clear that the IBM T40 has a TCPA chip
> in it with a "white list" of _allowed_ cards.  Apparently IBM has made a
> _policy_ decision to disallow any wifi card not on the list. (more
> below).  In doing this they have (perhaps unknowingly) severely limited
> the usefulness of the entire T40 (and X31 by extension) laptop lines for
> the many users of the Linux OS on those IBM systems.  Surely this was
> not intentional....

One bit of clarification here.  First of all, the prohibition as
absolutely nothing to do with TCPA.  Irrespective of what you might
think of the code in the BIOS which refuses to allow the machine to
boot with a unsupported card, this is completely orthoganal to the
functionality provided by the Embedded Security Subsystem chip, which
on the internal SM bus and merely is an encryption engine with some
key management magic.  It encrypts and decrypts blobs of data upon
request (assuming that you have the right keys and/or encrypted key
blocks); nothing more.

Please see:   http://www.research.ibm.com/gsal/tcpa/tcpa_rebuttal.pdf

For more information for some of the misinformation that's been going
around about TCPA.  TCPA is completely different and frequently
confused with Microsoft's Palladium, which *IS* evil.  :-)


As far as why there is a list of approved mini-PCI cards which are the
only ones accepted by BIOS, and why the BIOS refuses to boot if an
unsupported mini-PCI card is installed, I can only speculate.  (And I
am **NOT** speaking for IBM here.)  My initial reaction as soon as I
saw the story was FCC certification issues.  Yes, other laptop vendors
may not be as careful; however, I can easily believe than an IBM
lawyer was simply being ultra-paranoid, and required the lockout code
in the BIOS.  (Which, if you think about it, is very simple to
implement, and doesn't require any kind of special "chip", TCPA or
otherwise).


If the goal is simply to let a T40p laptop work with an internal
wireless card, there is a solution that works today.  Simply use the
Cisco MPI 350 mini-pci card instead, which *is* a supported card and
works just fine with the T40p.  The Cisco 350 wireless card is much
better than most generic Prism-2 cards anyway, since they support LEAP
(802.1x wireless authentication and encryption) and have more a
powerful transmitter (100mW) and a more sensitive receiver that most
other 802.11 cards out there.

I recently purchased a T40p with my own money (it's not a company
laptop), and knowing that there was going to be problems with the
802.11 a/b wireless, I also purchased the Cisco 350 mini-pci wireless
card.  The Cisco mini-PCI card was shipped separately from the laptop,
and so I had to install it myself (which required partial disassembly
of my laptop, and the use of a security torx driver, but any competent
hardware hacker shouldn't have a problem with it).  That means that I
still have the 802.11a/b mini-pci card, saved away for the day when a
driver might become available for it.

You can download the mpi350.c driver from the Cisco web page, and I
was able to drop it into a 2.4 Linux kernel tree and build it.  For
more details please see http://thunk.org/tytso/linux/t40.html.

							- Ted

Re: Linux and IBM : "unauthorized" mini-PCI : TCPA updates

[Martin List-Petersen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1517 bytes --]

On Mon, 2003-06-09 at 14:57, Dana Lacoste wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 18:59, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
> > Eerh, dumb question here: Is this MiniPCI Wlan cards in general or how ?
> > I ask, because i've seen MiniPCI Wlan cards and i've seen cards that in
> > fact are PC-Card Wlan cards and a PC-Card-to-PCI bridge put together on
> > a MiniPCI card, just adding another PC-Card slot to your notebook and
> > inserting a Wlan card there (Dell TrueMobile 1150).
> 
> IIRC, it's the antenna PLUS the WLan card that gets FCC licensed,
> so you violate FCC rules by allowing a card without an antenna,
> and this is why even 'regular' pcmcia cards all have their own
> 'unique' antenna jacks, so you can't plug in an off the shelf antenna
> and boost your signal.
> 
> So the theory that the IBM laptops with built in antennas can't
> use just any mini-PCI card makes sense, even if it is stupid.
> They would have been licensed for specific cards only, and would
> be violating the FCC license to use other cards.
> 
> I hope that's all it is.  If they had some other reason I'd be very
> pissed off if I bought a stinkpad.  (Wait a minute, I did buy a
> stinkpad :)

Ever thought that you might buy a sparepart for a notebook that you not
have ?

It can be, that you can't buy MiniPCI Wlan cards in retail. But they are
available as sparepart !

Regards,
Martin List-Petersen
martin at list-petersen dot dk
--
No matter what happens, there is always someone who knew it would.


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Linux and IBM : "unauthorized" mini-PCI : TCPA updates

[Dana Lacoste]

On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 18:59, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
> Eerh, dumb question here: Is this MiniPCI Wlan cards in general or how ?
> I ask, because i've seen MiniPCI Wlan cards and i've seen cards that in
> fact are PC-Card Wlan cards and a PC-Card-to-PCI bridge put together on
> a MiniPCI card, just adding another PC-Card slot to your notebook and
> inserting a Wlan card there (Dell TrueMobile 1150).

IIRC, it's the antenna PLUS the WLan card that gets FCC licensed,
so you violate FCC rules by allowing a card without an antenna,
and this is why even 'regular' pcmcia cards all have their own
'unique' antenna jacks, so you can't plug in an off the shelf antenna
and boost your signal.

So the theory that the IBM laptops with built in antennas can't
use just any mini-PCI card makes sense, even if it is stupid.
They would have been licensed for specific cards only, and would
be violating the FCC license to use other cards.

I hope that's all it is.  If they had some other reason I'd be very
pissed off if I bought a stinkpad.  (Wait a minute, I did buy a
stinkpad :)

Dana Lacoste
Ottawa, Canada

Re: Linux and IBM : "unauthorized" mini-PCI : TCPA updates

[Martin List-Petersen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1272 bytes --]

On Wed, 2003-06-04 at 14:39, Derek Fawcus wrote:
> I can't say I'm too suprised.
> 
> This is fuzy recall,  but I seem to remember reading that 802.11? mini-PCI
> cards are not type approved (radio licence) by themselves,  but only in
> combination with the system they are to be fitted in.
> 
> Hence they're not supposed to be available retail (now someone'll go and
> point out where they are :-)

Eerh, dumb question here: Is this MiniPCI Wlan cards in general or how ?
I ask, because i've seen MiniPCI Wlan cards and i've seen cards that in
fact are PC-Card Wlan cards and a PC-Card-to-PCI bridge put together on
a MiniPCI card, just adding another PC-Card slot to your notebook and
inserting a Wlan card there (Dell TrueMobile 1150).

Regards,
Martin List-Petersen
martin at list-petersen dot dk
--
Operating Systems Installed:
  * Debian GNU/Linux 2.1 4 CD Set ($20 from www.chguy.net; price includes
    taxes, shipping, and a $3 donation to FSF). 2 CDs are binaries, 2 CDs
    complete source code;
  * Windows 98 Second Edition Upgrade Version ($136 through Megadepot.com,
    price does not include taxes/shipping). Surprisingly, no source code
    is included.
 
        -- Bill Stilwell, http://linuxtoday.com/stories/8794.html


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Linux and IBM : "unauthorized" mini-PCI : TCPA updates

[Derek Fawcus]

I can't say I'm too suprised.

This is fuzy recall,  but I seem to remember reading that 802.11? mini-PCI
cards are not type approved (radio licence) by themselves,  but only in
combination with the system they are to be fitted in.

Hence they're not supposed to be available retail (now someone'll go and
point out where they are :-)

Mind,  that should just mean that the user makes changes at their own
risk,  I wouldn't have thought that the PC manufacturer would have been
required to limit the choice of usable radios.

However given some of the obligations placed upon manufactures of the
radio cards,  so that the user is prevented from changing configuration
of the radio cards themselves,  I'm not too suprised - e.g. limits to
prevent a user from raising the TX power to illegal levels,  despite
the fact that they could easily still use illegal antenna gain.

DF

Re: Linux and IBM : "unauthorized" mini-PCI : TCPA updates

[Josh Litherland]

In article <1054658054.9359.49.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> you wrote:

> Secondly TCPA doesn't require such a restriction. A TCPA system can have
> hardware whitelists so that the TCPA chip refuses to do any TCPA with
> unknown devices present (since they may be hostile) but it doesn't have
> to fail to boot in this case.

Interestingly, when the offending device is a modem, it will warn in
the BIOS but will neither disable the device nor refuse to boot.  Only
when a wireless NIC is inserted will it grind to a bloody halt.

-- 
Josh Litherland (josh@emperorlinux.com)

Re: Linux and IBM : "unauthorized" mini-PCI : TCPA updates

[Timothy Miller]

Michael Frank wrote:
> Solution: This community needs a white list of functioning hardware.
> 
> 


I could really use a white list for graphics cards.  It's hard enough 
finding something that works well in Windows.  For Linux, it's 
practically a lost cause unless you want to buy something more than 2 
years old.

Re: Linux and IBM : "unauthorized" mini-PCI : TCPA updates

[Michael Frank]

Solution: This community needs a white list of functioning hardware.

If NOBODY ever would purchase a piece of hardware unless proven 
to work, there would be better support already.

How to make new hardware work? Manufacturers lend it to developers
and support development. 

I suppose my notebook will last 4 years again as it took too much
effort to make work. Another 30 month to go then...

Regards
Michael

Linux and IBM : "unauthorized" mini-PCI : TCPA updates

[Lincoln Durey]

This item (and more generally the precedent it sets) will soon have a
disastrous effect on the Linux community, even though it is not
_directly_ a Linux problem.

Most of you have seen my LKML posting: (most of the tech details)
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0305.3/1538.html
"IBM T40 _refusing_ to boot with "unauthorized" mini-PCI wifi card"

As I gather more info, it becomes clear that the IBM T40 has a TCPA chip
in it with a "white list" of _allowed_ cards.  Apparently IBM has made a
_policy_ decision to disallow any wifi card not on the list. (more
below).  In doing this they have (perhaps unknowingly) severely limited
the usefulness of the entire T40 (and X31 by extension) laptop lines for
the many users of the Linux OS on those IBM systems.  Surely this was
not intentional....

The solution is a very simple removal of the white list from the BIOS.
_telling_ your customers what they may or may not put in a standard PC
expansion slot at the BIOS level (regardless of OS) is going to be a
disaster...

In reply to my e-mail of 5-30, titled:  (and my replies to them)
"IBM T40 _refusing_ to boot with "unauthorized" mini-PCI wifi card"

Kent E Yoder <yoder1@us.ibm.com> (512) 838-8397 writes:
> (I'm copying Janice here, who is the network device driver lead in
> the LTC, perhaps she can be of more assistance.)  Its really
> surprising that there would be this limitation though.  The fact that
> it says "unauthorized" seems suspect here, since I doubt there's just
> a list of cards you can install...  I see this model has a TCPA chip
> in it; if you've turned that on, you might want to install the card
> and then clear the TCPA ship.  Let me know if this works...

I've tried several variations on this theme, to no avail.  The TCPA chip
was initially not activated, and the 1802 error occurs.  Activating the
chip, and then clearing its settings (all via the BIOS) does nothing.
If the "IBM High Rate Wireless" (22P7701) is in the system, you get the
1802 error before you can even access the BIOS.

So, there indeed must be a "white list" (of what can be put in a
standard expansion slot!)

Burt Silverman <burts@us.ibm.com> writes:
> Sorry I have no experience with any Wireless cards at this point in
> time, and I have not seen this problem with much older PC cards that
> I used to use.
> Tim, do you know if anybody follows ThinkPad/Linux issues and that
> monitors problem areas like this? There used to be someone named
> Keith Frechette, but I cannot locate him in the directory.

PCMCIA cards are not affected, because we all _know_ these are for
peripheral expansion.  But we also all know that mini-PCI is also a
technology to allow expansion of laptops.

Bradford Jones <brad1@us.ibm.com> writes:
> Unfortunately I have not been with the SWAT team for 3yrs, but based
> on what I know from working with development, I can tell you that
> unless you are specifically using one of the min-PCI cards listed as
> a supported option, that is the error you can expect to see. This may
> be in part because of certain FCC regulations regarding wi-fi and
> specifically 802.11a. For instance when the T40 was released, the FCC
> would not allow us to make mini-PCI cards using 802.11a technology
> customer accessible or customer upgradeable.  This regulation does not
> apply to 802.11b, but there could be some other underlying reason for
> only allowing tested options to be installed. I cannot be sure though
> and will forward your inquiry to the current SWAT team.

I don't want the card to be "supported" by IBM, I just want the card
"authorized".  Linux already has support for prism2 cards, but will not
have 802.11a or 802.11g support in the foreseeable future (and only "a"
and "g" cards are on the white list).

Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> writes:
> Heh, sorry, I can't really help you out there.  I have no contacts
> within the thinkpad division, and neither does anyone else within the
> LTC that I know of.  The official statement is that the thinkpad
> division does not support Linux at all.

Again, the Linux community doesn't need support, just authorization.

> That being said, that is really a strange thing for the BIOS to do.
> I'll ask about it on an internal ibm linux mailing list and will let
> you know if anyone responds with anything.

The key thing to keep in mind is that while the affects Linux users
rather adversely, it is really a BIOS and _policy_ issue.  This would
happen if one got a T40 with winXP and put in any 802.11b card.

Alexandre Trépanier <atrepani@ca.ibm.com> (450) 534-7540 writes:
> It's not in my area of expertise but I took time to look in the
> intranet and I found nothing.

well Alex, perhaps you can paste this whole letter in...

	-- Lincoln @ EmperorLinux

Re: Linux and IBM : "unauthorized" mini-PCI : TCPA updates

[Alan Cox]

On Maw, 2003-06-03 at 17:49, Lincoln Durey wrote:
> As I gather more info, it becomes clear that the IBM T40 has a TCPA chip
> in it with a "white list" of _allowed_ cards.  Apparently IBM has made a
> _policy_ decision to disallow any wifi card not on the list. (more
> below).  In doing this they have (perhaps unknowingly) severely limited
> the usefulness of the entire T40 (and X31 by extension) laptop lines for
> the many users of the Linux OS on those IBM systems.  Surely this was
> not intentional....

It seems remarkably incompetent if so. 

Firstly IBM seem to claim the device supports mini-PCI but their public
details do not make it clear IBM only allow its use with certain
components so its not true mini-PCI - thats advertising and sales of
goods happy lawsuit time, and remarkably careless.

Secondly TCPA doesn't require such a restriction. A TCPA system can have
hardware whitelists so that the TCPA chip refuses to do any TCPA with
unknown devices present (since they may be hostile) but it doesn't have
to fail to boot in this case.

[The test is actually irrelevant not only because as you showed with the
 hot plug case you can swap it but because even without its been known
 since the mid 1970's how to get around that even though the 30 year old
 knowledge may now not be spoken in the USSA]

So either

1.	IBM got their TCPA horribly wrong
2.	IBM got some kind of alleged FCC restrictions horribly wrong since
you've shown its trivially possible to swap the card.

If IBM claimed the device supported mini-PCI and the slot only works
with certain devices - and that was not made clear - that you take it
up with the relevan business/advertising standards bodies.

I suspect theregister.co.uk would be very interested in the story too 8)