[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whswxd9b0A9Sr5YhjcGbA0WKrB8Rrtx89PLKeP6RdKT3A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 11:33:37 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/iopl changes for v5.5
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 8:16 AM Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> This tree implements a nice simplification of the iopl and ioperm code
> that Thomas Gleixner discovered: we can implement the IO privilege
> features of the iopl system call by using the IO permission bitmap in
> permissive mode, while trapping CLI/STI/POPF/PUSHF uses in user-space if
> they change the interrupt flag.
I've pulled it.
But do we have a test for something like this:
ioperm(.. limited set of ports..)
access that limited set.
special_sequence() {
iopl(3);
access some extended set
iopl(0)
}
go back to access the limited set again
because there's subtle interactions with people using *both* iopl()
and ioperm() and switching between the two. Historically you could
trivially do the above, because they are entirely independent
operations. Does it still work?
Too busy/lazy to check myself.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists