linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: Allow disabling of sys_iopl, sys

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:	Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:45:39 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: Allow disabling of sys_iopl, sys_ioperm

On 07/14/2011 03:40 PM, Mike Waychison wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 3:35 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>> On 07/14/2011 03:31 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>
>>> sys_iopl() is missing asmlinkage.
>>>
>>> It would be far more conventional to use cond_syscall().  Perhaps by
>>> adding a CONFIG_X86 area into kernel/sys_ni.c
>>>
>>> fyi, I'm offering special deals on checkpatch.pl site licenses this month.
>>
>> Again, I don't think this makes sense as a compile-time-only option.
> 
> echo "enabled" > /proc/sys/kernel/iopl_available
> echo "disabled" > /proc/sys/kernel/iopl_available
> echo "locked" > /proc/sys/kernel/iopl_available
> 

I'm suspecting that it might be cleaner to have kernel/ioaccess and
kernel/ioaccess_lock as two booleans (0 or 1)...

	-hpa
--
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/