[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADyApD2-J07zg7gfa+LrFbHB_p2gN5k2P+x7OTCW1_rybTkdQA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 08:25:59 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjanvandeven@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@...il.com>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Doug Johnson <dougvj@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86: Preserve iopl on fork and execve
>
> also the interesting question is:
> can a process give up these perms?
> otherwise it becomes a "once given, never gotten rid of" hell hole.
If you look at a modern linux distro, nothing should need/use iopl and
co anymore, so maybe an interesting
question is if we can stick these behind a CONFIG_ option (default on
of course for compatibility)... just like
some of the /dev/mem like things are now hidable for folks who know
they don't need them.
--
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