Re: [PATCH v2] x86: Preserve iopl on fork and execve

[Alex Henrie]

2015-05-12 9:47 GMT-06:00 Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On 2015-05-12 11:25, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Personally, I _really_ like this idea.  The only thing I know of on any
> modern distro that even considers using ioperm is hwclock, and it only does
> so if it can't access the RTC through other means (and if you have an RTC,
> you really should have the /dev interface enabled).

Removing iopl might be OK. Removing ioperm would break my use case of
legacy code that needs direct access to the parallel port.

-Alex
--
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/