On Fri, 16 May 2014 13:12:27 -0700 "Volkin, Bradley D" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:53:30PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > On Fri, 16 May 2014 12:34:08 -0700 > > Jesse Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 16 May 2014 20:20:50 +0100 > > > Chris Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Yes, X only sets the secure bit when it pokes the display registers, and > > > > those registers should be privileged even with a cmd parser in place > > > > (which they are). > > > > > > > > Daniel's argument presumes that we haven't been patching out the > > > > cmd parser all this time anyway. > > > > > > Yeah I know we have some perf issues as it is; it would be nice if the > > > overhead were so minimal that it didn't matter. But just on principle, > > > scanning secure buffers seems wrong, and I'm trying to understand why > > > Daniel would want it. > > > > Ok Daniel explained on IRC that we actually have a special whitelist > > for the secure batch case. The idea is to allow a DRM_MASTER to submit > > secure batches, but still prevent a local root exploit. I suppose that > > means preventing access to most commands and registers, but allowing a > > few extra things like wait events and display register updates. > > Just to clarify further: the additional register whitelist and commands > are only based on DRM_MASTER. Setting I915_EXEC_SECURE is not required. So > I suppose we could stop scanning batches that have I915_EXEC_SECURE and > userspace could stop sending such batches when the parser is fully enabled. Ah ok, yeah that's another option, but now I understand where Daniel is coming from with testing, since that's not how the current X driver behaves. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
