On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 12:34:20PM -0400, Adam Belay wrote:
> I agree this needs to be fixed. However, as I previously mentioned,
> this isn't the right place to attack the problem. Remember, this wasn't
> originally a kernel regression. Rather it's a workaround for a known
> X/lspci/whatever bug. It's not the kernel's job to babysit userspace.
> If a userspace app that has the proper permissions decides to take a
> course of action that could potentially crash the system, then it has a
> right to do so. There are probably dozens of vectors for these sorts of
> problems (e.g. mmap as Arjan has mentioned) so why stop at the pci
> config sysfs interface?
The patch I posted (to deny user access while the device is
transitioning D-states) is to fix a bug where *any* local user can bring
the system into undefined territory, simply by typing lspci at the right
moment. No special permission is needed.
I hadn't realised that pci_block_user_cfg_access() would call
pci_save_state(). There's only one other user of pci_block_user_cfg_access()
-- drivers/scsi/ipr.c and I think it could be induced to call
pci_save_state() itself. It's an odd asymmetry anyway -- block calls
save state, but unblock doesn't call restore_state.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
