[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1305134473.30435.178.camel@i7.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 18:21:13 +0100
From: "Woodhouse, David" <david.woodhouse@...el.com>
To: "Song, Youquan" <youquan.song@...el.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"hpa@...ux.intel.com" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
"Kay, Allen M" <allen.m.kay@...el.com>,
"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
"Liu, Kent" <kent.liu@...el.com>,
Youquan Song <youquan.song@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86, vt-d: enable x2apic opt out
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 08:06 +0100, Song, Youquan wrote:
> + pr_info("Not enabling x2apic, firmware requests OS opt-out "
> + "x2apic.\n");
This output is far too innocuous. At the very least, it should have a
clear statement that this should leave you vulnerable to IRQ injection
attacks that intr-remapping + x2apic would have protected against.
It should probably look more like:
WARN (1, "Your BIOS is broken and requested that x2apic be disabled\n"
"This will leave your machine vulnerable to irq-injection attacks\n"
"Use 'intel_iommu=no_x2apic_optout' to override BIOS request\n");
--
David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse@...el.com Intel Corporation
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (6242 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists