[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081116080342.3d6c6976@infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:03:42 -0800
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Bernhard Walle <bwalle@...e.de>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
crash-utility@...hat.com
Subject: Re: Turn CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM in sysctl dev.mem.restricted
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:45:41 +0000
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
ules that circumvent that
> > protection.
>
> With your patch I get crap in the kernel I don't need. In every kernel
> including those on memory tight devices like wireless routers that
> don't need it.
>
> You are turd polishing, and what is needed is a shovel.
>
> Even if you want to turd polish there are cleaner solutions. A process
> with CAP_SYS_RAWIO can cheerfully bypass any restriction you try and
> place
because it can load kernel modules?
or because it can bypass the iommu?
the point of the /dev/mem restrictions is to not allow things you know
you don't need, while still allowing X to function where it can access
the crap it does. Now in Bernhard's case he DOES need them, so he
shouldn't use the restrictions.
> There are proper ways to deal with X, modern video cards and modern
> security models. They involve using framebuffer mappings off the PCI
> device node itself and DRI.
>
when X has this for all hw that matters /dev/mem could go away for the
people who then no longer have any need for it.
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists