[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Reliability of RPC services
From: |
Jonathan S. Shapiro |
Subject: |
Re: Reliability of RPC services |
Date: |
Wed, 26 Apr 2006 20:55:10 -0400 |
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 19:32 -0500, Jesse D. McDonald wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 April 2006 19:17, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 19:05 -0500, Jesse D. McDonald wrote:
> > > This appears to be the primary point of contention for at least one
> > > version of this thread, but the resolution is simple. In no case would an
> > > untrusted device driver loaded by the user be granted free access to
> > > either the PCI bus (or any device thereon, given their DMA capabilities)
> > > or the system I/O space.
> >
> > Good. Then we are done, because this is basically the universal set of
> > all devices.
>
> It's actually a fairly limited set of devices. It doesn't include, for
> example, USB or IEEE-1394 devices (even if they happen to be accessed through
> a PCI controller), or (probably) ATA devices (it depends on the ATA
> protocol).
Jesse:
If you believe that, you need to go read the respective specifications
more carefully. USB and IEEE-1394 *definitely* allow remote devices to
be masters. ATA is more SCSI-like every day. I haven't checked, but I
bet that ATA allows it too. In fact, I'm pretty sure I remember
disconnected operations in ATA-6, which amounts to the same thing.
shap
- Re: Reliability of RPC services, (continued)
RE: Reliability of RPC services, Christopher Nelson, 2006/04/26
RE: Reliability of RPC services, Christopher Nelson, 2006/04/27