Thanks Russell and Roman for your helpful input. I'll look at it today and
resubmit for further discussion.
Ed Vance
Roman Kurakin wrote:
> Russell King wrote:
>
> >The patch does fine for the most part, but I have two worries:
> >
> >1. the possibilities of pushing through changes in the IO or memory space
> > by changing the other space at the same time. (ie, port = 1, iomem =
> > 0xfe007c00 and you already have a line at port = 0, iomem =
0xfe007c00).
> > I delt with this properly using the resource management subsystem.
> >
> I think such code could solve this problem ...
>
> - (rs_table[i].port == new_port) &&
> + ((rs_table[i].port && rs_table[i].port ==
new_port) ||
> + ((rs_table[i].iomem_base &&
rs_table[i].iomem_base == new_mem)) &&
>
>
> >2. there seems to be a lack of security considerations for changing the
> > iomem address. (ie, changing the iomem address without CAP_SYS_ADMIN.
> > I added this as an extra check for change_port)
> >
> And this one could be fixed with something like this (this is no a
> patch, just an idea)
>
> change_port = (new_port != ((int) state->port)) ||
> (new_serial.hub6 != state->hub6);
> + change_mem = (new_mem != state->iomem_base)
>
> if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) {
> - if (change_irq || change_port ||
> + if (change_irq || change_port || change_mem
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Vance serial24@macrolink.com
Macrolink, Inc. 1500 N. Kellogg Dr Anaheim, CA 92807
----------------------------------------------------------------
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 07 2002 - 21:01:05 EST