Yeah, it's a bad idea to give external devices truly direct access to memory. So map it through virtual memory. Or you can disable the OHCI hardware mapping, albeit with an efficiency penalty. Of course if you're close enough to a machine to be plugging things into it, security is somewhat moot (unless someone cons you into hooking up a trojan device, but that's a bit too Mission Impossible to be plausible).
The real problem with USB vs 1394 is that USB is master/slave and 1394 is P2P. Unless that's going away, and I can't see how it would, real world 1394 performance is always going to exceed USB at a given nominal data rate. What does USB 2.0 really give you? Around 40-45% of nominal bandwidth in my experience. Firewire pledges to give you 97%. 45% of 4800 Mbits/s is less than 97% of 3200 Mbits/s.
Register
@Chris C
Yeah, it's a bad idea to give external devices truly direct access to memory. So map it through virtual memory. Or you can disable the OHCI hardware mapping, albeit with an efficiency penalty. Of course if you're close enough to a machine to be plugging things into it, security is somewhat moot (unless someone cons you into hooking up a trojan device, but that's a bit too Mission Impossible to be plausible).
The real problem with USB vs 1394 is that USB is master/slave and 1394 is P2P. Unless that's going away, and I can't see how it would, real world 1394 performance is always going to exceed USB at a given nominal data rate. What does USB 2.0 really give you? Around 40-45% of nominal bandwidth in my experience. Firewire pledges to give you 97%. 45% of 4800 Mbits/s is less than 97% of 3200 Mbits/s.