On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 19:32 -0500, Jesse D. McDonald wrote: > On Wednesday 26 April 2006 19:17, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 19:05 -0500, Jesse D. McDonald wrote: > > > This appears to be the primary point of contention for at least one > > > version of this thread, but the resolution is simple. In no case would an > > > untrusted device driver loaded by the user be granted free access to > > > either the PCI bus (or any device thereon, given their DMA capabilities) > > > or the system I/O space. > > > > Good. Then we are done, because this is basically the universal set of > > all devices. > > It's actually a fairly limited set of devices. It doesn't include, for > example, USB or IEEE-1394 devices (even if they happen to be accessed through > a PCI controller), or (probably) ATA devices (it depends on the ATA > protocol).
Jesse: If you believe that, you need to go read the respective specifications more carefully. USB and IEEE-1394 *definitely* allow remote devices to be masters. ATA is more SCSI-like every day. I haven't checked, but I bet that ATA allows it too. In fact, I'm pretty sure I remember disconnected operations in ATA-6, which amounts to the same thing. shap _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
