lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 20:35:54 -0500 From: Timur Tabi <timur@...i.org> To: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org> Cc: Varun Sethi <Varun.Sethi@...escale.com>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>, stuart.yoder@...escale.com, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>, scottwood@...escale.com, "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5 v11] iommu/fsl: Freescale PAMU driver and iommu implementation. On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org> wrote: > > + panic("\n"); > > A kernel panic seems like an over-reaction to an access violation. We have no way to determining what code caused the violation, so we can't just kill the process. I agree it seems like overkill, but what else should we do? Does the IOMMU layer have a way for the IOMMU driver to stop the device that caused the problem? > Besides the device that caused the violation the system should still > work, no? Not really. The PAMU was designed to add IOMMU support to legacy devices, which have no concept of an MMU. If the PAMU detects an access violation, there's no way for the device to recover, because it has no idea that a violation has occurred. It's going to keep on writing to bad data. Maybe we need a mechanism where a driver can register a callback function to handle IOMMU exceptions? > > + /* > > + * In case of devices with multiple LIODNs just store > > + * the info for the first LIODN as all > > + * LIODNs share the same domain > > + */ > > + if (!old_domain_info) > > + dev->archdata.iommu_domain = info; > > + spin_unlock(&device_domain_lock); > > Don't you have to tell the hardware that a device was added to a domain? > I don't see that, what I am missing? I'm not sure I understand. What "hardware" do you think needs to be notified? The PAMU reads everything it needs from the PAACT, which we update. The PAMU does not know anything about the devices that it monitors, and the devices don't know anything about the PAMU. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists