linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 10/10] x86: Support compiling out userspace IO (iopl and ioperm)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Mon, 3 Nov 2014 12:10:49 +0000
From:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/10] x86: Support compiling out userspace IO (iopl
 and ioperm)

On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 09:33:01 -0800
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org> wrote:

> On the vast majority of modern systems, no processes will use the
> userspsace IO syscalls, iopl and ioperm.  Add a new config option,
> CONFIG_X86_IOPORT, to support configuring them out of the kernel
> entirely.  Most current systems do not run programs using these
> syscalls, so X86_IOPORT does not depend on EXPERT, though it does still
> default to y.

This isn't unreasonable but there are drivers with userspace helpers that
use iopl/ioperm type functionality where you should be doing a SELECT of
X86_IOPORT. The one that comes to mind is the uvesa driver. From a quick
scan it may these days be the only mainstream one that needs the select
adding.

Some X servers for legacy cards still use io port access. There are also
a couple of other highly non-obvious userspace users that hang on for
some systems - eg some older servers DMI and error records can only by
read via a real mode BIOS call so management tools have no choice but to
go the lrmi/io path.

Still makes sense IMHO.

>From a code perspective however you could define IO_BITMAP_LONGS to 0,
add an IO_BITMAP_SIZE (defined as LONGS + 1 or 0) and as far as I can see
gcc would then optimise out a lot of the code you are ifdeffing

Alan
--
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/