linux-kernel - Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] uio: new driver to support PCI MSI-X

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: <20151006083356.3da3defa@uryu.home.lan>
Date:	Tue, 6 Oct 2015 08:33:56 +0100
From:	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:	Vladislav Zolotarov <vladz@...udius-systems.com>, hjk@...sjkoch.de,
	dev@...k.org, gregkh@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] uio: new driver to support PCI MSI-X

Other than implementation objections, so far the two main arguments
against this reduce to:
  1. If you allow UIO ioctl then it opens an API hook for all the crap out
     of tree UIO drivers to do what they want.
  2. If you allow UIO MSI-X then you are expanding the usage of userspace
     device access in an insecure manner.

Another alternative which I explored was making a version of VFIO that
works without IOMMU. It solves #1 but actually increases the likely negative
response to arguent #2. This would keep same API, and avoid having to
modify UIO. But we would still have the same (if not more resistance)
from IOMMU developers who believe all systems have to be secure against
root.


--
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/