linux-kernel - Re: [dpdk-dev] Please stop using iopl() in DPDK

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1910252232590.1905@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Fri, 25 Oct 2019 22:43:54 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, dev@...k.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Please stop using iopl() in DPDK

On Fri, 25 Oct 2019, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 21:45:56 -0700
> Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
> > 3. Use ioperm() instead of iopl().
> 
> Ioperm has the wrong thread semantics. All DPDK applications have
> multiple threads and the initialization logic needs to work even
> if the thread is started later; threads can also be started by
> the user application.
> 
> Iopl applies to whole process so this is not an issue.

No. iopl is also per thread and not per process. That has been that way
forever. The man page is blantantly wrong.

Both iopl and ioperm are inherited on fork.
 
Thanks,

	tglx