[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110715000325.5b853426@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 00:03:25 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>,
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
> I'm suspecting that it might be cleaner to have kernel/ioaccess and
> kernel/ioaccess_lock as two booleans (0 or 1)...
I think firstly you need to decide what you are actually trying to stop
and the scope the problem out properly. Stopping iopl and ioperm without
thinking about the bigger picture is just going to produce nerf security.
--
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