linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] vfio/pci: Don't probe devices that can't be reset

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]

Date:   Fri, 18 Aug 2017 08:12:51 -0600
From:   Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To:     Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@...iumnetworks.com>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, david.daney@...ium.com,
        Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
        Robert Richter <robert.richter@...ium.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] vfio/pci: Don't probe devices that can't be
 reset

On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 15:42:31 +0200
Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@...iumnetworks.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 07:00:17AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 10:14:23 +0200
> > Jan Glauber <jglauber@...ium.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > If a PCI device supports neither function-level reset, nor slot
> > > or bus reset then refuse to probe it. A line is printed to inform
> > > the user.  
> > 
> > But that's not what this does, this requires that the device is on a
> > reset-able bus.  This is a massive regression.  With this we could no
> > longer assign devices on the root complex or any device which doesn't
> > return from bus reset and currently makes use of the NO_BUS_RESET flag
> > and works happily otherwise.  Full NAK.  Thanks,  
> 
> Looks like I missed the slot reset check. So how about this:
> 
> if (pci_probe_reset_slot(pdev->slot) && pci_probe_reset_bus(pdev->bus)) {
> 	dev_warn(...);
> 	return -ENODEV;
> }
> 
> Or am I still missing something here?

We don't require that a device is on a reset-able bus/slot, so any
attempt to impose that requirement means that there are devices that
might work perfectly fine that are now excluded from assignment.  The
entire premise is unacceptable.  Thanks,

Alex