linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: provide a DMI based port 0x80 I/O delay override.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:50:32 +0100
From:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "David P. Reed" <dpreed@...d.com>,
	Paul Rolland <rol@...917.net>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rol@...be.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: provide a DMI based port 0x80 I/O delay override.

On 17-12-07 22:40, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> Rene Herman wrote:
>>
>> Well, yes, I guess that does make sense. It's back again. Named the 
>> choices "standard" and "alternate" again as I feel "0x80" and "0xed" 
>> suggest they're free values a bit too much but if anyone feels 
>> strongly about it, so be it.
>>
> 
> They ARE -- or really, should be, free values (0xeb and 0xf0 are other 
> reasonable values, for example.)

I was afraid someone would say that. Making a random port available is fine 
for testing purposes but a failry dangerous thing to do generally. For a 
minimal version at -rc4 time, I believe sticking with 0x80 and 0xed ie best.

Lots of time during .25 to go wild...

Rene.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/