lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Flames over -- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
From
Date
On Sun, 2006-02-12 at 13:28 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:

> /me reads spec. *sigh* Whatever idiocy-committee wrote that spec was
> clearly either smoking crack or living in a fantasy-world (or both).
> An arbitrary unrestricted DMA bus is a massive and painfully obvious
> security hole. Can somebody _please_ shoot the guy that came up with
> that brilliant idea? At least it looks like it's not available if
> the firewire modules aren't loaded, which means that you can prevent
> that sort of attack, and my laptop luckily doesn't load those modules
> at boot just to save a bit of memory.

might not help since your firmware turns on the firewire port to enable
booting from firewire disks.

> Even still, that's just a
> terrible idea. Is there any practical way to restrict DMA and make
> FireWire secure?

load the modules with phys_dma=0

johannes
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-02-13 13:16    [W:0.306 / U:0.344 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site