[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjtdCJYfy6nZSE7nKzUb1WLqh0B6MByTJCKe9OLOQ08PQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 08:53:25 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 5/9] x86/ioport: Reduce ioperm impact for sane usage further
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 8:45 AM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>
> Further a quick look shows that dosemu uses ioperm in a fine grained
> manner. From memory it would allow a handful of ports to allow directly
> accessing a device and depended on the rest of the port accesses to be
> disallowed so it could trap and emulate them.
Yes. Making ioperm() some all-or-nothing thing would be horribly bad,
and has no real advantages that I can see.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists