Damien Zammit, le dim. 11 nov. 2018 13:24:00 +1100, a ecrit:
> On 11/11/18 12:51, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Damien Zammit, le dim. 11 nov. 2018 12:43:07 +1100, a ecrit:
> >> +#define IS_IN_PROTECTED_RANGE(from, to) \
> >> + ( ( ( from <= PCI_CFG1_START ) && ( to >= PCI_CFG1_END ) ) || \
> >
> >
On 11/11/18 12:51, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Damien Zammit, le dim. 11 nov. 2018 12:43:07 +1100, a ecrit:
>> +#define IS_IN_PROTECTED_RANGE(from, to) \
>> + ( ( ( from <= PCI_CFG1_START ) && ( to >= PCI_CFG1_END ) ) || \
>
> That should be from <= END && to >= BEGIN, shouldn't it?
Well, in my min
Damien Zammit, le dim. 11 nov. 2018 12:43:07 +1100, a ecrit:
> +#define IS_IN_PROTECTED_RANGE(from, to) \
> + ( ( ( from <= PCI_CFG1_START ) && ( to >= PCI_CFG1_END ) ) || \
That should be from <= END && to >= BEGIN, shouldn't it?
Samuel
On 10/11/18 20:50, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> The data register port is 0xCFC + (reg & 3); so it could be as much as
> 0xCFF.
>
> The x86 conf2 method also uses 0xC000 | dev << 8 | reg; so we need to
> also protect 0xc000 - 0xcfff.
See attached patch with corrections.
Thanks, Damien
>From b79f52db
Again, thanks :)
Damien Zammit, le sam. 10 nov. 2018 19:17:32 +1100, a ecrit:
> @@ -185,6 +191,13 @@ i386_io_perm_create (const ipc_port_t master_port,
> io_port_t from, io_port_t to,
>if (from > to)
> return KERN_INVALID_ARGUMENT;
>
> + if (from <= PCI_CFG1_ADDRESS_REG && to >= PCI_C
Hi all,
This patch for gnumach restricts the number of processes that can
simultaneously access pci io cfg range of ports down to 1 as per
discussion:
https://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2018-November/057691.html
Please review attached, thanks,
Damien
>From 8f5525e8d46b5cf47d7eaaeb92cdc2474
