On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Greg KH <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Hm, I got two different bug reports, and this same patch from two
> different people insisting that we broke their drivers with the above
> patches, and asked for this patch to be applied.
So I do think that we might be able to apply this patch, but I think
it needs a *lot* more thought than was obviously spent on it so far.
For example, right now it's actively insecure. Do we care? Maybe we
don't. The user-space uio side presumably is root-owned, and hopefully
trusted.
And what about the unaligned mmio case? Are people somehow
guaranteeing that the regions is page-aligned, even if it isn't
page-sized?
What is the actual hardware in question?
Basically, it's an obvious security issue, and we shouldn't just say
"whatever". But maybe - with lots of commentary about why the security
implications aren't actually bad in _practice_, and why things are
always page-aligned even if they aren't page-sized, we can say "ok,
it's wrong, but we can still do it because xyz".
So I'm mostly unhappy because I didn't see that kind of analysis, not
because the patch might not eventually be ok. A "this breaks my
driver" is nowhere near the kind of thought this needs, I think.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
