lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] ramoops: remove module parameters
From
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 1:25 AM, Marco Stornelli
<marco.stornelli@gmail.com> wrote:
> Il 18/11/2011 20:31, Kees Cook ha scritto:
>>
>> The ramoops driver is intended to be used with platforms that define
>> persistent memory regions. If memory regions were configurable with
>> module parameters, it would be possible to read some RAM regions via
>> the pstore interface without access to /dev/mem (which would result
>> in a loss of kernel memory privacy when a system is built with
>> STRICT_DEVMEM), so remove this ability completely.
>>
>
> I don't like it very much. The loss of module parameters give us less
> flexibility. The main goal of this driver is debug, so I think it should be
> fast to use. I mean it's not more possible reserve a memory region and load
> the module "on-the-fly", it needs a platform device, it's ok but I think
> it's a little bit more complicated, (without talking about platforms without
> a device tree source).
> I don't understand the problem of strict devmem. We shouldn't use kernel
> memory region but only reserved ones and the driver doesn't use the
> request_mem_region_exclusive, am I wrong?

Hmmm, maybe I'm reading it backwards, but I think we want it to use
..._exclusive().

int devmem_is_allowed(unsigned long pagenr)
{
if (pagenr <= 256)
return 1;
if (iomem_is_exclusive(pagenr << PAGE_SHIFT))
return 0;
if (!page_is_ram(pagenr))
return 1;
return 0;
}
If the region is exclusive, access is not allowed (return 0). ramoops
currently uses request_mem_region() instead of
request_mem_region_exclusive(). If we made that switch, I think I'd be
happy. Would this create some problem I'm not seeing?

-Kees

--
Kees Cook
ChromeOS Security


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-11-21 19:13    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site