[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110701161345.GA29775@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 18:13:45 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] Enhance /dev/mem to allow read/write of arbitrary
physical addresses
* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 07/01/2011 08:36 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > So we could kill multiple birds with the same stone here:
> >
> > - remove various ugly uses of /dev/mem (including the rootkit usage),
> > with or without strict-devmem
> >
> > - extending it to above-4G for inspection purposes
> >
> > - allowing to kill /dev/mem access runtime similar to the
> > disable_modules lock-down killswitch, for the so inclined.
> >
> > Would you be interested in modifying your patch-set in such a
> > fashion?
> >
>
> There is another use that I have looked at, as well: for testing
> purposes, it would be extremely good to be able to dirty and/or
> flush an arbitrary physical cache line for testing purposes.
>
> This is very very similar to /dev/mem usage -- access to an
> arbitrary chunk of memory -- and a fully enabled /dev/mem can of
> course support this use (just mmap the page with the relevant cache
> line). However, it could also be a separate device which could
> have looser permissions than /dev/mem; or a set of ioctls on
> /dev/mem with a separate kill switch, because no data would ever be
> have modified or returned to user space.
>
> Either way, though, we found that it would share a lot of code with
> the /dev/mem implementation, and as such fixing up the underlying
> machinery is the sanest way to upstream this.
To me that cache flush thing sounds obscure (but still useful) enough
to justify a new ioctl over /dev/mem.
Not sure it even needs a killswitch, unless there's some real
security problem related to it.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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