linux-kernel - Re: [linux-pm] Bug in PCI core

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20061013163635.GC11633@parisc-linux.org>
Date:	Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:36:35 -0600
From:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To:	Adam Belay <abelay@....EDU>
Cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz,
	Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.osdl.org>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Bug in PCI core

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 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/