linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PCI: Relax function 0 VPD test and relocate

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: <A0E9F02A-1141-45E6-A143-BB09B0408D60@intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 23 Sep 2015 19:16:25 +0000
From:	"Rustad, Mark D" <mark.d.rustad@...el.com>
To:	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
CC:	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	"myron.stowe@...hat.com" <myron.stowe@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: Relax function 0 VPD test and relocate


> On Sep 15, 2015, at 9:24 PM, Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> When we quirk a device with PCI_DEV_FLAGS_VPD_REF_F0 we're expecting
> to find a device where all the functions are identical.  If we don't
> find that, we don't make VPD accessible through pci_vpd_ops.  That
> means that if we quirk devices we shouldn't, we filter them out by
> hiding VPD entirely rather than allowing default access.  Instead, we
> can flip this around to only quirk devices that match a slightly more
> rigorous test in the quirk, allowing regular access for anything else.
> 
> Tests for the multifunction flag are removed since a) function 0 and
> the function under test are clearly a multifunction device if we're
> scanning a non-zero function in the same slot and b) at this point the
> flag is only set in the device under test if the multifunction bit is
> set in the PCI HEADER, which is a point of interpretation for the PCI
> spec.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
> ---
> 
> This is potentially another stable candiate since we're continuing to
> iterate on 932c435caba8, but since we don't actually know of a device
> where VPD is blocked (we don't think my Skylake example actually
> supports VPD), I'm not including it.  I would support it if requested
> though.

This looks good to me. I can't really test the cases it addresses, but it seems reasonable.
Acked-by: Mark Rustad <mark.d.rustad@...el.com>

--
Mark Rustad, Networking Division, Intel Corporation


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (842 bytes)