linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86, pci: Fix all early PCI scans to check the vendor ID first

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: <20120811104352.GI2644@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date:	Sat, 11 Aug 2012 03:43:52 -0700
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Betty Dall <betty.dall@...com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, pci: Fix all early PCI scans to check the vendor ID
 first

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 04:57:02PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 08/09/2012 03:34 PM, Betty Dall wrote:
> > 
> > I thought this should be a break instead of a continue since the code
> > does a break if the class is 0xffffffff. If the function does not have a
> > valid VENDOR_ID, then the remaining function numbers do not have to be
> > scanned because functions are required to be implemented in order (no
> > skipping a function number.)
> > 
> 
> Is that true?  This is certainly not true in PCI in general: there is
> required to be a function 0, but there is no guarantee that functions
> 1-7 don't have gaps.

These scans are for special known devices, presumably true for them.

Anwyays if you don't like it please use v1 of the patch.

-Andi
-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
--
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/