Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: Allow disabling of sys_iopl, sys_ioperm

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 07/14/2011 01:34 PM, Mike Waychison wrote:
> In some build environments, it is useful to allow disabling of IO
> accesses to hardware, without having to rely on CAP_SYS_RAWIO (which is
> already overloaded to mean many other things).  One way that userland
> has access to IO accesses is via the iopl(2) and ioperm(2) system calls.
> 
> Allow disabling of these system calls from ever being available via a
> configuration option, X86_SYS_IOPL.   This is implemented by simply
> stubbing out the system calls and having them return ENOSYS when their
> functionality is disabled.
> 
> Note that we default this option to 'y', so that existing kernel configs
> will continue to support sys_iopl and sys_ioperm as before.
> 

Wouldn't it be more useful for this to be a sysctl?  In particular, like
many similar things it probably should be a lockable sysctl (three
states: enabled, disabled, and locked-disabled).

Making it a compile-time option I'm very skeptical to.

	-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/