On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:39:04 -0500
Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 18 March 2005 05:16, Attila Kinali wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:53:04 -0500
> > IMHO there needs to be at least a check whether the
> > send commands can do anything harmfull. I also see
> > now that Timothy is right, a bit of hw support for this
> > kind of stuff will help.
>
> What exactly do you propose to check for?
Anything that might lead to unexpected, hardware or
software damaging behaviour. Like overwriting state registers,
changing frequency/resolution settings...
Anything you do not want to be changed by some program that
might be running on your machine.
> > > - PIO is only available to privileged tasks, normally only the kernel
> > > driver.
> >
> > How is this differentiation going to provide security ?
> > If i can DMA to any memory location on the card, then i
> > can also overwrite the PIO registers with indirect DMA.
> > Or do i miss something ?
>
> The PIO registers aren't in card memory, they are on the FPGA.
Hmm? Looks like i missunderstand the term PIO. Can you clarify
it for me please ?
> Also, we
> haven't yet specified how you provide the target DMA address for the card's
> memory. If we want, we can restrict the possible destination addresses in
> the card memory. The card itself doesn't have to provide any support for
> this because the DMA is being submitted via ioctl to our kernel driver
> anyway, and we can provide security checks there. That said, I doubt
> anybody will get around to this for a while, nor is it important in order
> to get something up and running.
ACK.
Attila Kinali
--
éãåããéãåã
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
