linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.19-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v3)

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]

Date:	Tue, 7 Nov 2006 12:30:25 -0800 (PST)
From:	Dave Olson <olson@...hscale.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	Bryan O'Sullivan <bos@...pentine.com>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.19-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v3)

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
| > | If your card doesn't pay attention to configuration space access cycles then
| > | there should be no reason to write the value there.   If your card does pay
| > | attention to the configuration space access cycles it should be trivial to
| > | make this work.
| >
| > The card does pay attention, and other programs such as lspci and the
| > like also look at the config space.  They should definitely be kept
| > in sync, and config writes are fairly cheap, anyway.
| 
| Well this is a rathole so it really isn't safe for lspci to play with
| (races with the kernel accessing it)

Displaying something that might change is a fact of life, and no
different than the PCI world.  It's still best to keep things as
correct as possible.

| This hole concept of you having the register but not connecting it up on
| the card is rather bizarre.

The HT core we use made it extremely difficult, unfortunately.   One of
those things in hardware you sometimes just have to live with.

| > The HT layer should always do the config updates, since you are trying
| > to clean up that layer.  Only the "extra" stuff (if any) should be done by
| > the callback.
| 
| Fine by me.  That's why the patch was up for review.  That is just moving
| the if statement I currently have.  So it should be trivial.  If that
| won't break your card that is good enough for me.

Thanks,

Dave Olson
dave.olson@...gic.com
-
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/