[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <536D406D.2080508@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 13:54:05 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/char/mem.c: Add /dev/ioports, supporting 16-bit
and 32-bit ports
On 05/09/2014 12:58 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 09 May 2014 12:19:16 Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>> + if (!access_ok(VERIFY_WRITE, buf, count))
>> + return -EFAULT;
>> + if (port > 65535)
>> + return 0;
>
> This should probably test against IO_SPACE_LIMIT, which may be zero,
> something larger than 65536 or even ULONG_MAX, depending on the
> architecture.
>
> In cases where this IO_SPACE_LIMIT is zero or ULONG_MAX, we should
> probably disallow access completely. The former case is for architectures
> that don't have any I/O ports, the other is either a mistake, or is
> used when inb is defined as readb, and the port numbers are just virtual
> addresses.
>
PCI supports a 32-bit I/O address space, so if the architecture permits
it, having a 32-bit I/O space is perfectly legitimate.
It is worth noting that /dev/port has the same problem.
However, if we're going to have these devices I'm wondering if having
/dev/portw and /dev/portl (or something like that) might not make sense,
rather than requiring a system call per transaction.
Also, x86 supports unaligned I/O port references, but not all
architectures do. On the other hand, x86 also supports ioperm().
-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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists