[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8a21f8b0-b67d-4484-8a47-1d68129b54dc@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2025 02:13:06 +0530
From: ALOK TIWARI <alok.a.tiwari@...cle.com>
To: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>, jgg@...dia.com, kevin.tian@...el.com,
corbet@....net, will@...nel.org
Cc: bagasdotme@...il.com, robin.murphy@....com, joro@...tes.org,
thierry.reding@...il.com, vdumpa@...dia.com, jonathanh@...dia.com,
shuah@...nel.org, jsnitsel@...hat.com, nathan@...nel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, yi.l.liu@...el.com, mshavit@...gle.com,
praan@...gle.com, zhangzekun11@...wei.com, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
mochs@...dia.com, vasant.hegde@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 20/22] iommu/tegra241-cmdqv: Do not statically map
LVCMDQs
On 26-04-2025 11:28, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> However, with the user-owned VINTF support, it exposes a security concern:
> if user space VM only wants one LVCMDQ for a VINTF, statically mapping two
> LVCMDQs creates a hidden VCMDQ that user space could DoS attack by writing
> ramdon stuff to overwhelm the kernel with unhandleable IRQs.
typo ramdon -> random
>
> Thus, to support the user-owned VINTF feature, a LVCMDQ mapping has to be
> done dynamically.
Thanks,
Alok
Powered by blists - more mailing lists